Shell accuses Carbon Tracker et al of "trivializing" climate debate.

Shell letter to shareholders: “To whom it may concern, We are writing this letter in response to enquiries from shareholders regarding the “carbon bubble” or “stranded assets” issue.” “We have recently discussed this issue with a wider group of shareholders at our annual Socially Responsible Investor event (April 10th, 2014) and this material can be found at the following publically available link.
http://www .shell .com/global/aboutshell/investor/news-and-librarv/presentations-201  4/socially ­ responsible-investors – briefing-london-april-10-2014.html
Shell believes that the risks from climate change will continue to rise up the public and political agenda . We are already taking steps to minimize our emissions, and we are preparing the company for when legislation and markets will support more significant action to mitigate C02.
However, we concur with the view in the recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (“IPCC”) report that there is a high degree of confidence that global warming will exceed 2°C by the end of the 21st century.  Yet this is not to argue that today’s low level of action will continue at this pace. Indeed, changes in regulatory priorities could well be relatively sudden. However, because of the long-lived nature of the infrastructure and many assets in the energy system, any transformation will inevitably take decades. This is in addition to the growth in energy demand that will likely continue until mid­ century, and possibly beyond. The world will continue to need oil and gas for many decades to come, supporting both demand, and oil & gas prices. As such, we do not believe that any of our proven reserves will become “stranded”.
While the “stranded asset” notion may appear to be a strong and thought-through case, it does have some fundamental flaws and there is a danger that some interest groups use it to trivialize the important societal issue of rising levels of C02 in the atmosphere . The methodology has significant gaps, not least a failure to acknowledge the significant projected growth in energy demand, the role of CCS, natural gas, bioenergy and energy efficiency measures.  Energy demand growth, in our view, will lead to fossil fuels continuing to play a major role in the energy system – accounting for 40-60% of energy supply in 2050 and beyond, for example. The huge investment required to provide energy is expected to require high energy prices, and not the drastic price drop envisaged for hydrocarbons in the carbon bubble concept.
….In summary, Shell does not believe that any of its proven reserves will become “stranded” as a result of current or reasonably foreseeable future legislation concerning carbon.  There is a risk that focusing on “stranded assets” or the concept of the “carbon bubble” distracts attention away from the reality of a growing population, increasing prosperity and growing energy demand. A fundamental transition of the energy system will be needed but that will take considerably longer than some alarmist interpretations of the unburnable carbon issue would have the public believe. Shell is focused on finding real solutions based on current energy realities to the widely acknowledged and real threat of climate change.”