The recent record-breaking temperatures across Europe have fuelled the debate over man-made climate change.
On one side, you have climate scientists, public health experts, meteorologists and the basic observable reality of a continent being cooked alive. On the other, you have people with flag emojis in their names insisting it is just summer, actually, and everyone should stop complaining because they once went to Benidorm in July and survived.
So, naturally, Shell ended up in the conversation.
The joke that went everywhere
The No Context Brits account posted a photo from the London Underground, showing a Transport for London-style heatwave notice that read:
“Feeling the heat?
Carry a bottle of water
Wear loose clothing
Blame Shell for this heatwave”
It was funny because it was blunt, and blunt because the polite version has already been tried for about 40 years.
The post went absolutely everywhere. At the time shown in the screenshot, it had more than 101,000 likes, which is generally a sign that a joke has escaped the group chat and entered national service.
The point being made was not especially complicated. Burning fossil fuels has warmed the planet. Warmer planets have more extreme heat. Fossil fuel companies have sold the products that helped cause the problem while spending decades trying to delay, soften or muddy the response to it. You may disagree with the wording, but the broad chain of responsibility is not some fringe TikTok theory.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says human activities, principally through greenhouse gas emissions, have “unequivocally caused global warming”. The World Resources Institute says the energy sector accounts for 76.7% of global greenhouse gas emissions, with transport alone making up 14.3%, while the same breakdown also includes fugitive emissions released during fossil fuel production and transmission.
Enter Tom Harwood
But into this furnace of public debate wandered GB News presenter Tom Harwood, who offered this.
“Shell pumping oil hardly releases any CO2.
The CO2 is released when you choose to burn it, in your car.”
Oh Tom.
There is a very specific kind of right-wing climate argument that tries to sound clever by moving the blame one inch down the supply chain and hoping nobody notices. This was that, wearing a little badge and waving.
Yes, the person driving the car is using the fuel. Nobody is claiming petrol magically combusts inside Shell’s boardroom while shareholders sit around breathing in the vibes. The issue is that oil companies extract, process, market, transport and sell the stuff that becomes the emissions. Their business model depends on more of it being burned.
Even Shell’s own climate reporting treats customer use of its products as part of the emissions picture. Shell says it has targets relating to the net carbon intensity of the products it sells and to customer emissions from the use of its oil products, known as Scope 3 Category 11. Reuters reported that Shell’s 2025 emissions were around 1.1 billion tonnes of CO2 equivalent, with the bulk coming from Scope 3 emissions, mainly the combustion of fuels it sells.
So the “it only happens when you burn it” defence is not the devastating insight Harwood appears to think it is. It is basically saying: “The problem with selling bullets only occurs when someone fires them.”
The replies
People noticed.
And these responses were only too happy to help.
Zoe Gardner (@ZoeJardiniere) wrote:
“😂😂😂😂 increeeedible right wing logic here”
Sean Biggerstaff (@Seanchuckle) said:
“Shell until very recently were flaring off so much excess gas in Nigeria that, were it to be piped to Europe, it could have satisfied the energy needs of Germany. Tom Harwood is a f*cking moron.”
Gas flaring is not some minor side issue either. The International Energy Agency says methane emissions from fossil fuels remain “stubbornly high”, and that large amounts of methane from oil, gas and coal could be avoided at no net cost because the captured gas could be sold or used.
HENRY MORRIS (@mrhenrymorris) asked:
“Can we deport people for not understanding basic physics? Extraction requires colossal amounts of energy at every stage.”
One user offered the courtroom version:
“I simply shot the bullet your honor, the victim consented to murder by being in the path of the bullet”
Gwared.bsky.social – Brazda, Seel & Son✊▽ (@Gwared) added:
“Tom thinks Shell are extracting oil using a straw and one guy with really big lungs.”
Sean Biggerstaff (@Seanchuckle) returned with the concise follow-up:
“Have you ever read a book?”
Haldane army faction (@mypalfootfoot7) wrote:
“Ah, I’ll just keep it in a cupboard instead”
The problem for Harwood is that the joke works because everyone understands the missing bit. Of course petrol emits when burned in a car. That is precisely why the companies producing and selling it are part of the climate story.
The broader debate
There is a serious policy discussion about individual choices, corporate responsibility, government regulation, public transport, urban planning, aviation, home heating and energy security. Nobody sensible argues that every ounce of responsibility sits with one company, or that consumers have no role in demand.
But the opposite argument, that fossil fuel companies are somehow passive bystanders because the final combustion happens in someone else’s engine, is laughable.
The whole point of Scope 3 emissions accounting is that a company’s climate impact does not stop at the factory gate or the oil rig. The Greenhouse Gas Protocol’s Scope 3 standard exists to help companies account for value chain emissions beyond their own operations, including the use of products they sell.
Not the only heatwave take to go wrong this month
Harwood’s attempt sits alongside a run of other recent climate takes that fell flat. Nick Ferrari asked why Britain couldn’t cope with the heat the way people in Africa and India do, and the internet explained, in some detail, that people in those countries die from extreme heat in enormous numbers too, and that the real difference is infrastructure built for the climate, not toughness. James O’Brien has separately argued that the professional climate deniers, having lost the scientific argument, have simply pivoted to attacking children for being “too soft” to handle heat, while broadcasting from air-conditioned studios themselves.
The scale of what’s actually happening
And this is happening against the backdrop of a genuinely dangerous heatwave. Reuters reported that Britain provisionally recorded its hottest June day on record during the latest European heatwave, while Paris hit a June record of 40.9C. WMO said the heatwave shattered numerous temperature records and had major impacts on health, infrastructure, agriculture, ecosystems and labour productivity.
The human cost is not theoretical. Spain attributed more than 1,000 excess deaths to heat during June, while France reported around 1,000 excess deaths during the record-breaking heatwave.
141 countries have voted at the UN to make climate action a legal obligation, with only eight voting against, including the US, Russia and Saudi Arabia. Against that backdrop, the continued popularity of electric SUVs illustrates how even ostensibly green consumer choices can undercut climate progress when the underlying vehicle size and weight remain the same.
That is the context in which people are making jokes about blaming Shell. It is not because they think Shell personally turned the sun up with a big red dial. It is because the planet is warming, the science is clear, the fossil fuel industry is central to the story, and some people are still trying to pretend the only relevant moral actor is Dave from Hemel Hempstead filling up his Ford Focus.
Harwood’s argument was meant to move the blame away from Shell and onto the consumer.
Instead, it reminded everyone that the “personal responsibility” line has always been a very convenient escape hatch for the companies making billions from the products causing the damage.
And judging by the replies, people are less willing than ever to climb through it for them.
Leave a Reply