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

221–230 of 322 posts

Re: Shell abandons its plan to offset CO2 emissions

#221

Post by dietr1ch »

vel0city wrote: post #144
lukeschlather wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Electricity is probably going to be an order of magnitude (or more) cheaper in 20 years, at least for bulk purchase in most fixed locations (not Antarctic winter.) The assumption that oil extraction is worthwhile is based on it being the cheapest way to get a unit of power. But if power is 1/10th what it costs now it is economical to do some process that has absurdly bad efficiency (10:1, even 100:1) to translate pow…

How do you see electricity getting 10x cheaper in 20 years? It sounds like people saying fission electricity would be too cheap to meter, and yet its some of the most expensive electricity we have in the US.

tbf, I think that most new technology has been the most expensive and impractical thing ever around its inception.

Re: Shell abandons its plan to offset CO2 emissions

#222

Post by kyletns »

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]

No. The decision of any individual consumer will always be millions of times less impactful than the decisions of the leaders in these organizations. They should be held to account - not the individual buying what they need to get through life.

Re: Shell abandons its plan to offset CO2 emissions

#223

Post by thelock85 »

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]

Respectfully, this seems like moving the goal posts.

Energy companies and governments are best positioned to hedge against future consequences of burning oil. It's exactly because we depend on them for a certain standard of living that they can shepherd change, but they serve stock prices not society.

It's a leadership problem where the actors with the most knowledge and resources to combat the problem can hide behind a version of "it's too big to fail" and then when it all falls apart leave everyone in the wind.

Re: Shell abandons its plan to offset CO2 emissions

#224

Post by kelseyfrog »

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]

I'm genuinely curious - what is your account of how the hole in the ozone developed and how the problem was remedied?

We'll learn a lot about how you view climate crisis by learning about how you think about the ozone crisis.

Re: Shell abandons its plan to offset CO2 emissions

#225

Post by MaxHoppersGhost »

wredue wrote: post #14
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…

Some 40% of the population is actively pro big oil and actively denies the carbon footprint causal links with climate change and warming. You think 20 years is enough for this reckoning? Honestly, I think they’re all going to get away with it with zero repercussion. If humanity is still around in a couple hundred years, there might be retroactive virtue signalling. But that doesn’t matter cause everyone responsible w…

Even if 100% of the global population was on board with getting rid of oil it would take more than 2 decades to lower demand by even 30% without causing massive decline in living standards.

Re: Shell abandons its plan to offset CO2 emissions

#226

Post by gregwebs »

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.

You are always going to be unhappy if your goal is to change the rest of the world. If you focus on yourself you will accomplish more and likely be happier. Start adapting now and know that the rest of the world will adapt eventually. Figure out how to reduce your own impact.

I moved to a location that is not going to see negatives from climate change. Even if your location isn't great, just work on what you can do. Stop consuming junk on Amazon and start freecycling in your neighborhood. Spend more money to buy goods that have a lower environmental impact. If you own a home, there's a lot you can do to improve the environment. Compost, install rain barrels, maybe solar panels, use native landscaping, plant more trees that will provide shade.

Re: Shell abandons its plan to offset CO2 emissions

#227

Post by MaxHoppersGhost »

jacquesm wrote: post #129
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…

What amazes me is that you just can't opt out, short of jumping off a cliff. Everything you do involves the destruction of non-renewable resources. If you look at what you produce in terms of garbage and other waste every month it is completely insane. Everything is packaged in plastic, high grade cardboard, glass etc. The amount of energy and materials required is ridiculous. And yet, not a month goes by or somethin…

> If you look at what you produce in terms of garbage and other waste every month it is completely insane. Everything is packaged in plastic, high grade cardboard, glass etc.

This has bothered me since I was a child and drove by a landfill and realized just how much trash we produce. I met someone that went a month without using one time use plastic and she couldn’t really avoid it. It’s everywhere.

Re: Shell abandons its plan to offset CO2 emissions

#228

Post by UtopiaPunk »

corethree wrote: post #191
UtopiaPunk wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Corporations don't make money unless the people purchase their products. In fact who is actually causing emissions? They sell products and it's the end users who burn the product. Every gallon of oil you use is equivalent to a democratic vote for oil ... we all can choose to vote in the other direction right now... but we don't.

I mean, I do, but that doesn't actually matter. I ride my bicycle and take the bus, but there are places I can't visit on a bike or a bus because, through a series of intentional policy decisions that primarily benefit capitalists, towns are designed with long stretches of road that accomodate cars over all other forms of transportation. Car manufacturers and oil companies have made a lot of money off of arranging society this way.

Not Just Bikes has a good video on the propaganda car companies were pushing in the 50s here, which played a large part in creating the unprecented design of suburban America: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n94-_yE4IeU&t=1060s

Re: Shell abandons its plan to offset CO2 emissions

#229

Post by gumballindie »

gregwebs wrote: post #226
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.

You are always going to be unhappy if your goal is to change the rest of the world. If you focus on yourself you will accomplish more and likely be happier. Start adapting now and know that the rest of the world will adapt eventually. Figure out how to reduce your own impact. I moved to a location that is not going to see negatives from climate change. Even if your location isn't great, just work on what you can do.…

My thoughts exactly. Best one can do is plan for the worst. I bought a property at an altitude high enough so that if sea levels rise won't affect me (I am likely going to stay here that long anyway, but my goal is to develop habits), I de amazoned where possible and gave up habbits alltogether where not possible but can cope without, rain barrels and solar panels on their way and so on, playing around with microgreens, learning about plant seeds (I don't think i'll ever pick up farming but it's a good skill to have).

Re: Shell abandons its plan to offset CO2 emissions

#230

Post by akamaka »

corethree wrote: post #107
akamaka wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you embrace hopelessness and do nothing to make the transition away from fossil fuels, it’s your own life that will be grim as carbon is more heavily taxed and life becomes increasingly unaffordable. I’m personally quite optimistic, because I’ve already made most of the necessary adjustments, and it wasn’t very hard at all.

If you embrace logic the trend lines point to an obvious future regardless of optimism or pessimism. Unfortunately this future is inline with the the pessimistic viewpoint. It's not about pessimism or optimism in the end. It's about logic. He's right. It's done. Likely the worst case scenario for global warming will play out. We already crossed the permanent threshold.

The trend line to look at is that renewable energy is growing exponentially, while world fossil fuel usage has peaked (and is declining in developed countries).
Post reply on HN