Green larping

Hi there,

Keep Cool has long been focused on optimism, on a can-do attitude. I’m more of a “yes, and” than a “yes, but” guy, but it’s still worth noting this edition isn’t necessarily optimistic. That said, as I wrote last week, we live in times of radical change. Which is often fruitful ground in and upon which to experiment. To try new things. To dabble in radical change oneself. The gist of the piece is well distilled by this post by David Ho:

♡ If you find this work valuable, you can support it here. I put a lot of time into it. ♡

TRYING SOMETHING NEW

In order not to bury the lede, here’s the idea. It’s not just the U.S. federal government that is throwing the baby out with the bathwater (trying to, at least) as far as progressive climate mitigation and clean energy policy is concerned. There’s another clear pattern. Corporations are also almost gleefully using the present turmoil and daily flood of news as a convenient smokescreen to push back, roll back, or announce their inability to hit previously set climate targets. The cynic on my left shoulder says they were waiting for an excuse to do so, to abandon pledges they never intended to fulfill in the first place. When X company misses a once-announced emissions reduction target, they can issue a quick press release, expect it to get lost in the noise, or, at worst, face a day or two of moderate criticism. Then it's forgotten and it’s back to business as usual.

This reveals a few things:

• Many corporate commitments to emissions reductions were either a) untenable on their self-selected timelines (same can be said internationally, FWIW) and/or b) were entirely unserious to begin. Behind closed doors, I have zero doubt some executives or mid-level managers would readily admit: "We never had any intention of making good on this in the first place."

• Many ‘climate’ commitments were performative, through and through, from the start. Convenient when the fanfare and enthusiasm was high. Now that it’s not? Easily discarded amidst the cacophony of noisy news, volatile markets, etc…

• To clarify the subject line, rather than refer to this as greenwashing or even green “hushing,” I chose to call this behavior green larping. To larp is an acronym for live-action role-play, and Merriam-Webster defines larping as “the activity of participating in live-action role-playing games.” The shoe fits.

tl;dr → Companies are using all other turmoil and distraction as a cloak of invisibility against scrutiny re: anything related to sustainability to benefit their short-term bottom line. No real surprise there; it’s a tale as old as time (at least post-barter system).

Of course, many targets were also ambitious and challenging. This isn’t all black and white. And businesses exist to make money; that’s the system we have. Still, I’ll take the time to more or less just list out ~40 commitment rollbacks or failures because, while I’ve seen some coverage to this extent elsewhere, I haven’t seen a moderately comprehensive list (not that mine couldn’t probably use hundreds more additions).

What’s also particularly disconcerting is that plenty of the rollbacks or delays we’ll see below were announced before Trump was even elected; this isn’t all about him. It’s a global phenomenon. And it’s a phenomenon that is made even more concerning when cast in relief against the fact that we’re collectively very far off pace with respect to mitigating warming, reducing emissions, and reducing many other pollutants or addressing other environmental ills. Per Reuters:

Newsflash—that’s not happening! If I’m playing bookie, I rate that about a 0.0001% chance. A longshot. A lame racehorse with a flashy name. Time to get real. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news. I’d love to be wrong, but I won’t be.

Ok, let’s get to it.

Here’s a straight-up list of companies that have failed to make good on, or have proactively walked back commitments they previously rolled out with great fanfare. You know, the whole red carpet treatment.

Why this format? I don’t know for sure. But I haven’t seen a list this extensive out there. I don’t love playing the “name-and-shame” game. But, as noted at the top, it’s important to try new things from time to time. Apologies in advance if your employer is listed; it's worth knowing, though, if it wasn’t on your radar!

1. BP (was once rebranded as “Beyond Petroleum”): Abandoned plans to cut oil and gas production; slashed low-carbon investment by $5 billion annually (from $7B to $2B); increased oil/gas production investment by 20% to $10B; suspended a low-carbon fuels project in Australia; Diverted $3.8 billion from renewables to Azerbaijan gas fields; acquired 17 new Gulf of Mexico drilling leases; disbanded internal carbon pricing team. Link. Link. Link. Link. Link.

2. Ørsted: Cut 2030 renewable investment plans by 25%. Link.

3. TotalEnergies: Effectively abandoned all US offshore wind construction plans. Link.

4. Equinor: Halved renewables spending; increased oil production targets by 10%.

5. HSBC: Delayed net zero goals from 2030 to 2050 (a 20-year extension). Link. Link. Link.

6. Freyr Battery: Canceled planned $2.6 billion battery factory in Georgia. Link.

7. Airbus: Paused hydrogen aviation project. Link.

8. Air Products: Exited three US-based clean energy projects; cited "regulatory uncertainty" while expanding gray hydrogen production. Link. Link.

9. Southwest Airlines: Retreated on clean fuel and climate initiatives. Link.

10. Bezos Earth Fund: Pulled $10 billion backing from Science Based Targets initiative (key corporate climate target verifier). Link.

11. Microsoft: Reported AI expansion is putting its previously announced climate targets at grave risk. Link. Link.

12. Dozens of major banks: Withdrew from Net Zero Banking Alliance. Link.

13. Blackrock abandoned The Net Zero Asset Managers initiative, which then paused operations. Link.

14. Blackrock also cut ESG fund allocations by $65 billion (22% of 2023 totals); removed 1,200 companies from exclusion lists, including major coal producers; dissolved Climate Action 100+ steering committee seat. Link. Link.

15. Coca-Cola: Pushed back packaging sustainability goals to 2035 from 2030. Link.

16. Repsol: Froze green hydrogen projects in Spain. Link.

17. Alphabet Inc. (Google): Ended 17-year carbon neutrality program after 2023 emissions surged 13% due to AI data center expansion; five-year emissions up nearly 50%; pivoted to more carbon-removal credits. Link. Link. Link.

18. Shell: Abandoned 2035 target to reduce net carbon intensity by 45%; cited "uncertainty in energy transition pace" while boosting LNG investments. Link.

19. Tractor Supply Co.: Eliminated all DEI roles and net-zero-by-2040 operations goal; canceled 50% diversity target for managerial positions. Link.

20. Canadian Oilsands Consortium (Suncor/CNRL): Removed all decarbonization targets from corporate communications; redirected $3.4 billion to thermal oil production. Link.

21. Breakthrough Energy Ventures (Bill Gates): Reduced investment pace dramatically from $1 billion over its first 5 years to a fraction of that amount; slashed funding for nuclear fusion projects and power storage companies; has not raised a new fund since 2021 despite initial plans for successive funds. Link.

22. Wells Fargo: Abandoned 2030 "financed emissions" targets for different industry sectors and 2050 net-zero goal; increased fossil fuel financing; shifted focus from emissions reductions to "supporting the transition to a low-carbon economy" without specific targets. Link.

23. TotalEnergies: Abandoned $4B U.S. offshore wind portfolio; reallocated 78% of 2025 capex to LNG and deepwater drilling. Link.

24. Volkswagen Group: Postponed European EV production target by five years to 2040; reduced planned EV models from 27 to 15 by 2030; reallocated €17 billion to ICE vehicle development amid lagging EV demand. Link,.

25. Saudi Aramco: Boosted oil production capacity target to 15M barrels/day by 2030 (from 13M); canceled $7 billion carbon capture hub; reduced upstream methane intensity targets by half. Link.

26. Unilever: Scaled back 2025 sustainable packaging goal from 100% to 50% recyclability; reinstated palm oil suppliers with deforestation links; cut regenerative agriculture funding by £2.3 billion. Link.

27. JPMorgan Chase: Increased fossil fuel financing to $81 billion in 2024 (18% YoY rise); exited GFANZ alliance; terminated coal exclusion policies for 14 Asian power utilities. Link.

28. General Motors: Canceled $3 billion Michigan battery plant; extended Chevrolet Silverado ICE production to 2040 (from 2035); actively reducing its EV charging network investment. Link. Link.

29. Uniper: Warned it’s likely to slow “a planned 8 billion-euro ($8.7 billion) investment in cleaner fuels amid slower than expected demand for hydrogen from industry.” Link.

30. EnerBlu: Canceled planned $412 million battery manufacturing plant in Kentucky; returned Department of Energy grant after securing $5 million in federal funding. Link.

You get the idea…

Of course, while we started with a focus on companies, many countries & major blocs are up to the same panicked retreat:

1. The U.S.: Axing almost everything with a hint of “green” it can federally, ASAP.

2. SEC: Suspended climate disclosure rule defense; halted requirements for Scope 1-2 emissions reporting, enabling corporate non-disclosure. Link.

3. Germany: Scaled down national climate ambitions; extended gas subsidies beyond 2035 and is scaling back other ambitious initiatives it previously rolled out, including for steel decarboninzation. Link. Link.

4. The UK: Delayed ICE vehicle ban to 2035 (from 2030); postponed off-grid fossil boiler phaseout to 2035 (originally 2026). Link.

5. New Zealand: Scrapped multiple emissions-reduction policies, including agricultural methane targets and public transport funding. Link.

6. Australia’s Coalition Party: Proposed weakening 2035 NDC targets; opened the door to Paris Agreement non-compliance while retaining symbolic 2050 net-zero pledge. Link.

7. Indonesia: Expanded coal mining permits by 12.7 million hectares (2024 Energy Policy); revoked 2018 peatland protection laws covering 6.2 million hectares; slashed renewable energy targets to 17% by 2030 (from 23%). Link.

8. India: Approved 72 new coal plants (48GW capacity). Link.

9. The EU: Will stick with a ban on new combustion engine vehicles by 2035, but weakened corporate sustainability reporting requirements by excluding Scope 3 emissions; extended the compliance window for the 2025 fleet emissions target to 2027 (allowing companies selling too many high-emissions vehicles to compensate over a longer period); announced a "Clean Industrial Deal" that drastically curbs climate ambitions while maintaining long-term decarbonization goals; pushed off a plan to enshrine a 90% emissions cut by 2040 in law; relaxed restrictions on how countries can subsidize "strategic" low-carbon technologies. Link. Link.

Nor is it just countries and corporations that matter. Cities and states, matter to. For instance, Washington State, despite an ample endowment of emissions-free hydropower, isn’t making good on its climate targets either.

Inconvenient Truths

1. It’s business as usual, baby.

2. Energy transitions are incredibly hard and take time.

The world now spends $2T annually on energy transition efforts, and yet, CO₂ and other greenhouse gas emissions remain at all-time highs. That tells you what you need to know. 

Reducing emissions meaningfully will also be an uphill battle regardless of what the U.S. does. China consumes 50%+ of the world’s coal! There’s no fast economic solution to that.

India also consumes 10% alone. Hence, two countries alone consume close to 2/3rds of the world’s coal, which is still the #1 fuel source for primary energy generation.

Feeling the feelings, freeing the fears

Is this all a bit sad? Sure. Is it better to come to that conclusion now? Absolutely.

Is it also a little freeing? In my experience so far, yeah. It’s unlikely your actions are being watched as much as you reckon; like BP, you can kinda just ‘do stuff,’ sans risk of much embarrassment or getting an inflation-price-spiked egg on your face.

Make of that what you will, ideally something good if not great! Just don’t tell anyone I gave you a hall pass to harm. Because if that comes to pass, I didn’t. I’ll hand you a pass to a reduced fear of judgment, not to avoid responsibility.

Given that this latest climate tech cycle was my first rodeo in the space, I’m basically preaching to myself here, but say it with me if you care to: “No ‘announcement’ of future intent or ambition will impress me that much going forward. At all.”

If announcements mean little, what matters? Energy transition infrastructure deployment does. First-of-a-kind decarbonization projects financed and that bkreak ground do. New policy experiments that persist matter. Companies sticking to their commitments matter. In general, financial capital funding flows matter, albeit to a lesser degree; other capital, whether labor hours or human intellect and expertise, probably matter more. Hiring or firing the right person, for instance, matters more.

At a personal level, I intuitively know this. You get a quick dopamine hit from telling people about your plans and ideas versus actually bringing them to life. It’s a shortcut to the fulfillment one might feel from actually doing the thing, but it’s perfectly appealing and much more readily available. It was also perfectly well laid out to me once by a wise woman who said she didn’t want to talk about the book she was (is?) writing because doing so was not a practice she was interested in vis a vis the above. I never forgot it.

Announcements are very low-cost, low-risk marketing for corporations, especially the further out the proposed deadline is. They can count on the news cycle moving on, so their failure to make good on plans or even publicly rolling them back will hardly register as even a blip on most people’s radar.

So, what’s something actionable if you do not want to abandon your commitments or, better yet, wish to stand firmly by them? For corporations, it’s probably worth reconsidering your “story’s” frame. If you are or were a “climate” or energy company or individual, even adjacently, I’m not sure old modes of telling the “story,” like using the words “climate,” ESG, or whatever else we (and I really do also mean I) may have resorted to were effective. I am definitely not sure they will be effective in the short to medium term. These days, if you need capital allocator—not to mention policymaker and customer—attention/entry/traction, it’s probably worth testing stories like “waste to value.” I’m (obviously) still figuring out what words to try myself.

Of course, whether as a company or individual, you also have to deliver competitive advantages that are sufficiently meaningful to outstrip switching costs and that ideally also scale well. How do you do that as a company, let alone a country? Not sure. I’ve never succeeded (or tried politics).

As an individual? Still figuring it out, too. Adaptability and/or, at minimum, trying new things helps a great deal, though. Especially as opposed to doubling down on something fundamentally broken, negative EV, or even a hair askew.

LMK what you think,

— Nick