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

Re: Shell abandons its plan to offset CO2 emissions

#231

Post by welcome_dragon » Thu, Aug 31, 2023, 5:12 PM UTC

plopz wrote: post #59

NoMoreNicksLeft wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If there are x offsets available, and demand is x + 100, then when Shell buys offsets, they're not really fixing the problem at all, they're just shifting blame right? They're saying "since we spent this money on the offsets, our carbon emissions were good (or at least 'less bad'), but the other company that couldn't afford or wouldn't bother with the offsets is bad even though there were only enough offsets for one…

the bigger problem with carbon offsets is that the underlying system that is supposed to be backing the units aren't actually offsetting any carbon. wendover has a nice video on it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AW3gaelBypY

Is anyone surprised by this?

Re: Shell abandons its plan to offset CO2 emissions

#232

Post by mullingitover » Thu, Aug 31, 2023, 5:12 PM UTC

vasco wrote: post #141

mullingitover wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These seem like ChatGPT’s response to the prompt “Give me a list of disingenuous points for dismissing anthropogenic climate change.”

I don't think they are dismissive points. I think specially the ending makes a whole lot of sense to me. I'd give negative shits about the environment if I struggled for food or housing or basic essentials. The same way the best way to tackle crime is through better education for the people, getting the existing people out of poverty might be the single best thing we can do to have them realize the impact, reproduce…

They're not just dismissive, they're pretty obviously bad faith arguments. "CO2 is plant food" is a classic climate denier talking point that you hear from your crazy uncle on Facebook, who's parroting something they heard from a pundit on Fox News.

Water is also plant food, but that's not a helpful piece of information if you're in a flood. The world is releasing 97 million barrels of gasoline into the atmosphere per day.

Re: Shell abandons its plan to offset CO2 emissions

#233

Post by davis » Thu, Aug 31, 2023, 5:13 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]

It's infeasible and unreasonable to think that in order to criticize and advocate for a change in society, that person needs to be outside of it. Having an iPhone doesn't change any of what they are saying.

The impact of the plastic material for those products is a fraction of the energy required to make them and run our modern life. Clean power and getting rid of fossil fuels that are burned for energy is the most important thing here.

Re: Shell abandons its plan to offset CO2 emissions

#234

Post by UtopiaPunk » Thu, Aug 31, 2023, 5:15 PM UTC

Aunche wrote: post #156

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…

Ah yes. The famous capitalists who caused famine in Easter Island and told Chinese people to decimate the forests of China to fuel the smelting of small quantities of pig-iron. Ostrom didn't debunk the tragedy of the commons. She merely suggests a framework that would avoid it, which has never been tested at the scale of 7 billion people trying to solve global warming.

The history of Easter Island is debateable: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/rethinking-easter...

And yeah, sure I'm not here to defend Mao's policies. But an authoritarian state is not at all related to a collective of people managing resources, so I'm not sure why you're even bringing it up?

What's your vision of a better society?

Re: Shell abandons its plan to offset CO2 emissions

#235

Post by MaxHoppersGhost » Thu, Aug 31, 2023, 5:15 PM UTC

throwaway894345 wrote: post #166

hkt wrote: post #106

Remember folks, you can strike back: ditch your car, ditch your gas cooker, get solar panels, get batteries, use less energy, get a heat pump. Change your life to be healthier and deprive these animals of profit.

You don't even have to ditch your car (an absurd proposition for most people), you could just get an EV.

Do you realize how they get batteries for an EV? And where the electricity comes from? And what every part of the EV are made out of?

Re: Shell abandons its plan to offset CO2 emissions

#236

Post by tw04 » Thu, Aug 31, 2023, 5:16 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]

Nobody said oil was going away entirely. But we're well past the point we should still be burning it for locomotion or power. And given what we're seeing with microplastics, we should probably be rapidly trying to move back to glass where appropriate for home supplies.

Re: Shell abandons its plan to offset CO2 emissions

#237

Post by _ea1k » Thu, Aug 31, 2023, 5:22 PM UTC

In my area, their EV charging network has built several sites in the last few years. They are all terrible due to severe limits on peak amps (200A, IIRC).

TBH, it is pretty surprising, considering that they should clearly be seeing the opportunity.

Re: Shell abandons its plan to offset CO2 emissions

#238

Post by tremon » Thu, Aug 31, 2023, 5:22 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?

Why is the planet more green today than a century ago?

Perhaps because of all the chemical-induced algae blooms turning previously blue water into murky green?

Re: Shell abandons its plan to offset CO2 emissions

#239

Post by protastus » Thu, Aug 31, 2023, 5:26 PM UTC

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…

Your analogy with big tobacco is on point.

Big oil and big tobacco share a strategy of promoting false skepticism, shifting blame to consumers, using the legal system to harass and intimidate scientists, and lobbying to get support from elected representatives. Big oil is of course bigger, and the entanglement with politics, jobs and other companies in the private sector is much stronger.

These issues are widely documented, and the books that climate scientist Michael Mann wrote were eye opening to me.

The only sensible exit is to legislate at scale. These companies will not self regulate. The lag between cause and effect makes this extremely dangerous. A heavy carbon tax is an obvious way to do it.

Re: Shell abandons its plan to offset CO2 emissions

#240

Post by prmoustache » Thu, Aug 31, 2023, 5:31 PM UTC

btilly wrote: post #149

prmoustache wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> EV's now have a non-negligible share of new vehicle sales, In only a few third world countries.

In Norway, about 90% of new sales are EVs. They aren't a third world country. https://insideevs.com/news/675163/norway-plugin-car-sales-ju... The USA was at 14% last year and could hit 18% this year. https://insideevs.com/news/675163/norway-plugin-car-sales-ju...

that was a typo, I meant first world countries.