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

Re: Shell abandons its plan to offset CO2 emissions

#211

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

saalweachter wrote: post #198

ff317 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we'll never stop extracting oil in the foreseeable future, we'll just be doing a lot less of it. There will always be corner cases where diesel or other oil derivatives (or NG) are the /only/ reasonable option for fuel. Think generators for an antarctic station that can only use solar in certain months and wind isn't enough (or reliable enough)). Even if efficient electric commercial aviation at scale ever ha…

The US military uses about 5% of the oil used in the US. That's a lot, but if we only used oil in the US for the military, we'd still be using 95% less oil, and we'd also still be producing enough oil to have an economy of scale. In any case, realistically speaking, we aren't coming for oil tomorrow. Instead, we need to come for coal immediately. If it takes us decades each time we cut our oil consumption in half, th…

someone needs to tell China, India, Indonesia, Turkey and Zimbabwe

> China, India, Indonesia, Turkey and Zimbabwe were the only countries that both added new coal plants and announced new projects. China accounted for 92% of all new coal project announcements.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/coal-burning-capacity-cli...

Re: Shell abandons its plan to offset CO2 emissions

#212

Post by _ea1k » Thu, Aug 31, 2023, 4:47 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…

Yes, I've found that to be the case. There are certainly people who buy Teslas and other EVs to save the planet.

But I don't think it is the majority. Most enjoy the cars for other reasons (lack of vibration, high torque, reduced gas station visits, lower operating cost and burden, cabin overheat protection, dog mode, preconditioning, etc).

Even among the environmental types, that often ends up being more of a fringe benefit.

Re: Shell abandons its plan to offset CO2 emissions

#213

Post by robnado » Thu, Aug 31, 2023, 4:47 PM UTC

IKantRead wrote: post #197

thworp wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would like to add a point that is rarely spelled out: A shock-therapy style stop to fossil fuel extraction will kill millions of people through starvation, economic collapse and insufficient heating in winter. Depending how shocking the shock therapy is it could be billions.

Wait until you see what climate change does with continued carbon emissions! But this has always been the problem with stopping climate change. We are choosing between lesser, but certain immediate pain vs larger but less certain future pain. In the 1880s we could have easily stopped climate changed, but been forced to slow growth. The pain would have been minimal for those living, but the probability of extreme cata…

Without modern fertilizers which heavily rely on fossil fuels to produce, roughly half of the world population cannot be fed. Further, agriculture becomes much more labor intensive and we pretty much revert to the past where the majority of the population on earth were farmers. If you don't know how to farm effectively using past methods, you probably also get added to the "cannot be fed" list. That is a substantial immediate pain. I would much rather work to gradually reduce carbon emissions while mitigating the damage done.

I'm curious how you think that the damage of climate change can be worse than this.

Re: Shell abandons its plan to offset CO2 emissions

#214

Post by _ea1k » Thu, Aug 31, 2023, 4:48 PM UTC

MaxHoppersGhost wrote: post #208

wonderwonder wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

I think it is at least 50% for crude oil.

Re: Shell abandons its plan to offset CO2 emissions

#215

Post by _ea1k » Thu, Aug 31, 2023, 4:49 PM UTC

matthewdgreen wrote: post #58

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…

I guess my question is at what point does the decline in fossil extraction become self-reinforcing. If extraction is going down, firms won’t invest in developing new resources. This means constraints on supply leading to higher prices. That in turn will drive less consumption (particularly as non-fossil alternatives become mainstream.) There is a potential feedback loop here that drives things towards zero much more…

There are also little oddities, such as the impact on gas stations along common commuter routes. There are a lot of marginal stations on those routes now. In some places, you'd only have to lose a couple of stations for commuting to be an annoyance.

And commuter traffic is an obvious easy target for EV automakers, once they move out of more premium segments.

Re: Shell abandons its plan to offset CO2 emissions

#216

Post by DanielVZ » Thu, Aug 31, 2023, 4:50 PM UTC

MaxHoppersGhost wrote: post #207

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…

[flagged]

Nah, it’s the companies that lobby to maximize profit. Cities used to be human scale, but cars took over the streets.

Now we know thousands of people die every year in car accidents but it isn’t a priority for governments because freedom to give a shitload of money to oil and car companies matters more than human life.

Re: Shell abandons its plan to offset CO2 emissions

#217

Post by jackmott42 » Thu, Aug 31, 2023, 4:51 PM UTC

UncleMeat wrote: post #196

wonderwonder wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

They don't need to all shut down. They can stop interfering with regulation that allows for cleaner power generation, for example.

There is no regulation proposed, or method proposed, to substantively reduce how much co2 is emitted when you burn fossil fuels for power. That is why this problem is so hard. You can't put a filter in place like you can for heavy metals or particulates. There is no solution other than switching to nuclear/solar/wind/etc

Re: Shell abandons its plan to offset CO2 emissions

#218

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Aug 31, 2023, 4:51 PM UTC

SubiculumCode wrote: post #157

webworker wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can’t seriously believe that we’re in that grave of danger

I seriously believe it. Climate change will almost certainly lead to food insecurity and political upheavals, leading mass migration and war, not to mention potential knock-on effects where, for example, photosynthesis reductions due to extreme heat at the equator, rapid rates of methane release as permafrost melts, mass death in a heating and acidifying sea... . really there are just so many things that could go wro…

[deleted]

Re: Shell abandons its plan to offset CO2 emissions

#219

Post by UncleMeat » Thu, Aug 31, 2023, 4:52 PM UTC

jackmott42 wrote: post #217

UncleMeat wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They don't need to all shut down. They can stop interfering with regulation that allows for cleaner power generation, for example.

There is no regulation proposed, or method proposed, to substantively reduce how much co2 is emitted when you burn fossil fuels for power. That is why this problem is so hard. You can't put a filter in place like you can for heavy metals or particulates. There is no solution other than switching to nuclear/solar/wind/etc

And those solutions can be enforced by regulation. But when you get regulation like generation shifting, corporations and the political right wing collude to say that the regulations are unconstitutional.

Re: Shell abandons its plan to offset CO2 emissions

#220

Post by esafak » Thu, Aug 31, 2023, 4:53 PM UTC

MaxHoppersGhost wrote: post #207

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…

[flagged]

Price in the carbon footprint of these products and see if they're still so attractive.