Shell abandons its plan to offset CO2 emissions • Hacker News Board

Re: Shell abandons its plan to offset CO2 emissions

#201

Post by DoingIsLearning » Thu, Aug 31, 2023, 4:30 PM UTC

weichbild wrote: post #45

DoingIsLearning wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If your view is that all fossil fuel assets are headed towards zero over the next 3-4 decades, then you want to extract every last penny from the existing assets and move them into the pockets of shareholders. I can not locate the long piece article now but I read a piece from someone that effectively got invited into a Shell (UK) think tank and heard exactly that from some vp/executive at a dinner table. That they…

Possibly this article? https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/03/shell-climate-change... My first thought as well.

Indeed it is.

Re: Shell abandons its plan to offset CO2 emissions

#202

Post by trashtester » Thu, Aug 31, 2023, 4:32 PM UTC

ndsipa_pomu wrote: post #190

trashtester wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"As late as possibe" might be something like year 2200-2300, after global temperatures have already risen 5-10 degrees. > crops fail due to the climate becoming unpredictable and wars over clean water become ubiquitous Currently, we're facing what can become the worst famine in decades because of a single war that was NOT caused by global warming or access to water. Just simple nationalism. The food supply 50-300 yea…

I have difficulty believing any of what you are claiming. e.g. how is Africa going to have a high birth rate when it'll be largely inhabitable due to the high temperatures? Also, what famine are you referring to and why does it not feature here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_famines

I'm talking about the potential famine of 2024, it didn't really start yet. Caused mostly by reduced food exports from Ukraine and Russia.

Re: Shell abandons its plan to offset CO2 emissions

#203

Post by ClumsyPilot » Thu, Aug 31, 2023, 4:32 PM UTC

UncleMeat wrote: post #194

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> we blame ourselves So I buy shrimp that was grown locally. Then I read up that shrimps were transported to the other side of the world, peeled there, and shipped back, travelled 20,000 miles, before landong on my plate. I buy canned pairs, and turns out the same story. What am I suppose to do, starve? The capitalist machine prioritises fictitious resource of money, over real resource of oil. It wastes huge amount o…

Yep. Even if consumers want environmentally friendly products, this only achieves the advertisement of environmental friendliness unless there is associated regulation. Companies can find a way to convince consumers that their products are environmentally friendly without actually changing the effect they have on the world. Consumers have minimal access to information to see through this effect. We need help from gov…

> Companies can find a way to convince consumers that their products are environmentally friendly

For some reason, whenI lie to the insurance company, its fraud and I am a criminal.

But when a company lies to me about my environmentally friendly product, it's just business.

Re: Shell abandons its plan to offset CO2 emissions

#204

Post by ClumsyPilot » Thu, Aug 31, 2023, 4:37 PM UTC

nancyhn wrote: post #113

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…

Why do fewer climate related deaths; down 98% the past century and a more green planet than a century ago and far fewer people in poverty all lead you to believe it's becoming uninhabitable?

because half of bees are gone, half of barrier reef is gone, 75% of insects are gone, UK has like 10% tree cover left, emperor penguins, had zero chicks survive

Do you think you can survive if the biosphere is gone?

Re: Shell abandons its plan to offset CO2 emissions

#205

Post by trashtester » Thu, Aug 31, 2023, 4:38 PM UTC

ndsipa_pomu wrote: post #190

trashtester wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"As late as possibe" might be something like year 2200-2300, after global temperatures have already risen 5-10 degrees. > crops fail due to the climate becoming unpredictable and wars over clean water become ubiquitous Currently, we're facing what can become the worst famine in decades because of a single war that was NOT caused by global warming or access to water. Just simple nationalism. The food supply 50-300 yea…

I have difficulty believing any of what you are claiming. e.g. how is Africa going to have a high birth rate when it'll be largely inhabitable due to the high temperatures? Also, what famine are you referring to and why does it not feature here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_famines

Also, about Africa: That's the only continent where birth rates remain really high today, and they have very far to go before the continent becomes uninabitable due to temperatures.

Anyway, my point was that UNLESS Africa continues to have such birth rates, the population seems to be falling sharply globally in the next century. In other words, the main assumption is that global pupulation is going down, with the Africa part only being a qualifier.

Re: Shell abandons its plan to offset CO2 emissions

#206

Post by 14 » Thu, Aug 31, 2023, 4:39 PM UTC

wonderwonder wrote: post #178

coliveira wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their entire plan is: - Deny the existence of the problem. - Pay for others to join the denialist movement. - Pay others to say that individuals should fix the problem, not the company. - If they cannot deny anymore, promise they will certainly do something in the future. - When the future arrives, say they couldn't do anything for financial reasons. - Finally, say that the harm is already done, and nothing else can…

I think its deeper than that. Its not an oil company issue (I am not implying in anyway that they are the good guys here) What would happen to society if tomorrow all oil companies just said the risk of global warming is too great, we are all shutting down. Society would collapse. Its not so much they are doing this for profits; which of course they are, but society as a whole very much needs them to continue to do s…

Exactly. You me and everyone who drives or consumes basically anything are part of the problem. You can’t put all the blame on them. However where they are to blame is denying the science to the public for years. Had they invested in clean tech years ago we would be much better off.

Re: Shell abandons its plan to offset CO2 emissions

#207

Post by MaxHoppersGhost » Thu, Aug 31, 2023, 4:40 PM UTC

coliveira wrote: post #160

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…

Their entire plan is: - Deny the existence of the problem. - Pay for others to join the denialist movement. - Pay others to say that individuals should fix the problem, not the company. - If they cannot deny anymore, promise they will certainly do something in the future. - When the future arrives, say they couldn't do anything for financial reasons. - Finally, say that the harm is already done, and nothing else can…

[flagged]

Re: Shell abandons its plan to offset CO2 emissions

#208

Post by MaxHoppersGhost » Thu, Aug 31, 2023, 4:42 PM UTC

wonderwonder wrote: post #167

DoingIsLearning wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If your view is that all fossil fuel assets are headed towards zero over the next 3-4 decades, then you want to extract every last penny from the existing assets and move them into the pockets of shareholders. I can not locate the long piece article now but I read a piece from someone that effectively got invited into a Shell (UK) think tank and heard exactly that from some vp/executive at a dinner table. That they…

"they ultimately still believed that the public opinion would still make it palatable to continue hydrocarbon fuels extraction for another 2 to 3 decades" And they are right. There are viable alternatives to gasoline cars now and people still buy gas powered vehicles. Most of Teslas success I think has not been so much due to the hunger for an electric vehicle but because of Tesla's cool factor, performance and desig…

Gas for vehicles is a very small part of the total demand of oil.

Re: Shell abandons its plan to offset CO2 emissions

#209

Post by _ea1k » Thu, Aug 31, 2023, 4:44 PM UTC

datavirtue wrote: post #85

bryanlarsen wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Global hydrocarbon consumption is down on a per capita basis. And that's despite the fact that renewable energy and electric vehicles had a negligible share. It's only the last year or two that renewable energy's share has become non-negligible. The EV transition is lagging the renewable energy transition, but it's happening too. EV's now have a non-negligible share of new vehicle sales, but since it takes ~20 years…

The EV crutch is getting really old. With current tech it is not a solution. Not even remotely. It's great. I love the idea too. I would rather we stop driving around machines that belch out dangerous toxins but a mass migration to EVs will be disastrous. The manufacturers are going hybrid...which is a sensible transition. It should get people used to the freedom of producing/collecting their own energy. Hopefully th…

A lot of us are thoroughly enjoying our disasters.

Re: Shell abandons its plan to offset CO2 emissions

#210

Post by GenericPoster » Thu, Aug 31, 2023, 4:46 PM UTC

corethree wrote: post #193

kjkjadksj wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The consumer is only capable of choosing among options capital has made available in the market. Placing the blame on them misses how the system works. The idea of consumers having a choice is an illusion created by marketing to make consumers feel like they have some free will in their actions.

Do you work for a corporation? Most likely you do. What is a corporation made up of but the people themselves? We all have a choice. It's just a hard choice that you are not willing to make. You aren't willing to sacrifice. If the corporation made the choice for you, you'd still be paying the same cost. It's no different. You either stop buying oil or they stop selling oil to you. It's just a blame game your playing…

I appreciate the idealism but that's an incredibly naive take. The idea of "just walk" or "just ride a bike" or "just move" or "just grow your own food" is nonsensical when talking about US infrastructure. Humans have limits and those that are at the bottom of the economic status, the ones who would be affected the most don't need another self imposed hurdle. Their lives are already hard enough as it is.

There was a solution and it involved beating the corporations into submission before they ever amassed such a massive amount of power. This idea of endless growth needed to be stopped and society needed to transition to a more sustainable way of living. But it's honestly too late. Corporations are made up of people but those people aren't in control.

The most impactful action that a single person can take is to not have children. Let the population drop and kill all demand. Thankfully cooperations are making this choice easier than ever.