Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Shell abandons its plan to offset CO2 emissions

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 322 posts

Re: Shell abandons its plan to offset CO2 emissions

#131

Post by UtopiaPunk »

corethree wrote: post #75
tw04 wrote: post #7

It makes a ton of sense if your focus is only short-term profit. It makes absolutely 0 sense if your goal is to try to decrease the legal liability of knowingly causing global warming and actively suppressing those internal studies to increase profits. Feels like the oil companies are going to face a big tobacco moment in the next 20 years and the previous CEO was preparing their defense of "don't punish us for the s…

The future is pointing to the end of these companies. Shell is maximizing its returns before the end. It is the most long term outlook you can get. What's more important?a future where my children are billionaires or a future with slightly less global warming? Shell is not the only source of global warming on this earth. You need to think in terms of human scale choices. Not just simplistic right or wrong choices. If…

It's not the "tragedy of the commons," it's capitalism. They're opposite things. The "commons" were fenced in and taken from the public by private entities. In the same spirit, a healthy environment and stable climate system are being taken from all of us by private corporations. I would argue, in fact, that if the public had control over these resources, we would govern ourselves in a far different manner that would not lead towards such a bleak future simply because we are motivated by short-term profits.

Elinor Ostrom has written an excellent book called "Governing the Commons," and she was awarded a Nobel Prize in Economics for her work. I recommend it.

Re: Shell abandons its plan to offset CO2 emissions

#132

Post by manoDev »

iamflimflam1 wrote: post #30

I try to remain positive, but climate change is the one area where I have pretty much lost hope. People (and I include myself) are simply unwilling to accept that their lives have to change. Barring some of unforeseen technical miracle the next 20-30 years are going to get increasingly grim.

"It's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism."

Re: Shell abandons its plan to offset CO2 emissions

#133

Post by ClumsyPilot »

civilized wrote: post #78
sobkas wrote: post #67

Then there should be consequences for destroying environment and making earth inhabitable for humans. Oil industry knew that burning fossil fuels will lead to global warming. Plastic industry knew that recycling is a total sham, and most of it will at best end up on a landfill at worts everywhere including our food. They knew but then they lied to us to make more profits. Maybe we should take that ill gotten profits…

I think developed nations collectively bought into fossil fuel-driven civilization, so it seems like scapegoating to lay all the blame at the feet of the producers. But like you say, it is appropriate to blame the producers for hiding what they knew about the greenhouse effect and well-funded lobbying and propaganda campaigns to deny and minimize it.

so you think its a collecrive decision made by all of us with full knowledge, and fossil fuel companies are just doing what the consumer wants?

Then why do journalists investifating recycling sham, oil spills, etc. frequently end up dead or in prison?

Re: Shell abandons its plan to offset CO2 emissions

#134

Post by JTbane »

nancyhn wrote: post #96
tw04 wrote: post #7

It makes a ton of sense if your focus is only short-term profit. It makes absolutely 0 sense if your goal is to try to decrease the legal liability of knowingly causing global warming and actively suppressing those internal studies to increase profits. Feels like the oil companies are going to face a big tobacco moment in the next 20 years and the previous CEO was preparing their defense of "don't punish us for the s…

Climate related deaths have declined by 98% over the last century. You are 50x less likely to die of a climate-related cause than in 1920. 8x as many people die from cold temperatures as warm ones. The planet is more green today than a century ago. CO2 is plant food. We need more energy, not less. Renewable, nuclear, and yes even fossil fuels. It brings people out of poverty and increases standard of living. When hum…

>Climate related deaths have declined by 98% over the last century.

Wow, HVAC is an amazing technology.

Re: Shell abandons its plan to offset CO2 emissions

#135

Post by jnsaff2 »

fluoridation wrote: post #16
jnsaff2 wrote: post #10

Correct me if I'm wrong but even the original plan only covered carbon footprint of Shell's operations? Which I presume are pretty much a minor fraction of the carbon footprint of their products and kinda makes the whole exercise a PR campaign. Even when it would cover pipeline leaks and the like it's still nowhere near their total impact.

Were you expecting Shell to increase the efficiency of every existing internal combustion engine?

Idk, we could illustrate this a bit with: "hey, we are in the business of murder, we switched from machine guns to sniper rifles, our murder is now much less wasteful (in terms of bullets used)".

That is not to say you are wrong, it was maybe just that when a fossil fuel company tells you it's reducing it's carbon impact then the whole premise is going to be cynical at best.

Re: Shell abandons its plan to offset CO2 emissions

#136

Post by User23 »

ndsipa_pomu wrote: post #126
trashtester wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the world stopped consuming fossil fuels today, overpopulation would no longer be an issue in about a year or two. Because 90% of the population would die.

That seems to be an excuse that's been in use for decades. Meanwhile, we're just dragging our feet about stopping oil use and kicking the can down the road for the next generation to deal with. Ultimately, it's a very poor excuse to state that because we can't stop immediately, that we might as well continue digging as much oil as possible out of the ground for burning.

There’s no credible path for reducing carbon emissions enough to reverse warming under current models that doesn’t involve gigadeaths.

Re: Shell abandons its plan to offset CO2 emissions

#137

Post by UncleMeat »

coding123 wrote: post #100
UncleMeat wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is true that the people demanded the lifestyle provided by fossil fuel emissions. But corporations didn't just say "oh if you insist." When new policies and regulations are attempted that will not affect the lifestyle of the people but will eat into corporate profits, they fight tooth and nail. An honest corporation that was just acting to serve the needs of the people wouldn't do something like fight to reduce th…

I think we've KNOWN what this shit does to the air and water for at least, what 40 years? At what point do we blame ourselves to increasing fossil fuel usage, even in the what, past 5 years?

I think that we can also reasonably blame people who use a disproportionate amount of electricity for their harm caused to the planet. I don't think that some sort of redistribution effort that accounts for past harm is impossible.

But I also think that the effect of even a megamillionaire who takes a private jet everywhere is dwarfed by the effect of corporate leadership, lobbying, and legal teams who successfully undo regulation via the courts and legislatures so that they can make more profits.

Re: Shell abandons its plan to offset CO2 emissions

#138

Post by elzbardico »

fwungy wrote: post #68

The rising BRICS dominate hydrocarbons and they aren't giving them up, selling or using. We should be focused on mitigation strategies and superior technology that wins conversion based on market forces and not government mandates and long term subsidies. The Green Suicide of the West isn't going to help climate change, and will probably make it worse.

Give a couple of years for the professional managerial class to start to understand this. Meanwhile, consider the advantages of learning to speak Chinese.

Re: Shell abandons its plan to offset CO2 emissions

#139

Post by NoMoreNicksLeft »

sobkas wrote: post #88
NoMoreNicksLeft wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Honestly, I think they’re all going to get away with it with zero repercussion. Suppose for a moment that I completely agree with you on all points of substance. Even then, I would have to tell you that corporations are designed (not metaphorically, but literally designed) to deflect and shield liability. There never is anyone to be held accountable, because everyone who acts is an employee, and the ownership is di…

Then civil forfeiture every dollar and every thing they own. For some reason police can do it to the poor, why not do the same for corporations and people making decisions there? Maybe executives are "not guilty", but their possessions doesn't have same rights as they do. So take it all away.

Everything who owns? The corporation?

What you think is a harsh fine, even "everything they own" is nothing more than the cost of doing business. Even if you seize a few tens of billions of dollars, what's that compared to the trillions they've earned and paid out as dividends over the last century?

> For some reason police can do it to the poor,

Which is an interesting discussion if you wanted to have it, but is not even slightly relevant to this one.

What do you expect the police to do with oil rigs and tanker fleets and refineries and gas stations? What do you expect them to do with office buildings filled with conference rooms and thousand dollar conference room chairs?

Do you want to pile it into a big bonfire and burn it ironically? Do you put it in a landfill and bulldoze them under the ground? Do you want to sell that stuff on Craigslist yard-sale style for the next 60 years at a penny on the dollar?

Not to mention now you've put a 100,000 people out of work, probably more. I guess making them starve because they took a gas station job is justice in your mind.

> but their possessions doesn't have same rights as they do. So take it all away.

The interesting thing about "just fuck their rights" apoplectic outbursts like yours is, someone's likely to take you up on it someday. You're just likely to be the target more than whoever it is you think you hate.

The sad fact is that none of this can ever be fixed until some large fraction of humanity understands the problem. I've done my part, but you insist on remaining ignorant.

Re: Shell abandons its plan to offset CO2 emissions

#140

Post by [deleted] »

Capricorn2481 wrote: post #124
mdgrech23 wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess I don't see what other option we have other than drill baby drill. Yes we're killing our planet but renewable aren't able to provide the energy we need at scale. Switching to 100% renewables and not drilling means increased oil prices and ultimately less consumption across the board. Less food, less driving, less heat, less AC. We'd all have to give up a lot and no one is signing up for that. There's this mag…

The option is not 100% renewable or 100% fossil fuels. It's not a ridiculous goal that we can just reduce emissions

[deleted]
Post reply on HN