Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why are they sticking it on Shell? Blame drivers. And anyway, even if Shell did hamper the global phasing out of fossils in the past we still need their oil. It's unfair to the public. And also, "knowingly hampering the global phase-out of fossil fuels" sounds like it deserves a fine, not a demand that to my ears at least sounds unreasonable. One more point, if renewables are actually viable then fossils should anywa…
> And anyway, even if Shell did hamper the global phasing out of fossils in the past we still need their oil. This is like a trauma surgeon stabbing me and going "aren't you lucky I'm a surgeon?"
Shell ordered to cut CO2 emissions by 45% in landmark climate case
241–250 of 292 posts
Re: Shell ordered to cut CO2 emissions by 45% in landmark climate case
#242Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is the issue that the comparison is bad and/or doesn't add much value - or just that we should generally avoid discussing that topic unless directly related?
in general imo one shouldn’t make comparisons to: 1. nazis/holocaust 2. slavery etc… as it devalues the actual event you’re comparing it to. i get that it’s just meant to make a point but even over using the comparison in everyday speech devalues it it’s fine talking about those issues in general.
Re: Shell ordered to cut CO2 emissions by 45% in landmark climate case
#243Earlier quoted context omitted.
> China creates more CO2 than the rest of the world combined. I've never seen a murderer walk free by telling a judge "this other guy did more murders than me". > giving China a free pass What is this "free pass" of which you speak? > All the models are in silica Utter bollocks. Babbage never built his analytical engine, so I doubt Fourier, Foote and their contemporaries were using climate modelling software.
>What is this "free pass" of which you speak? We gladly buy almost everything from China (lithium batteries, electronics, wind turbines, solar panels, all of which take a tremendous amount of energy to manufacture), without ever asking if they were made in a "CO2 neutral" way.
Re: Shell ordered to cut CO2 emissions by 45% in landmark climate case
#244Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a very tiny percentage of oil that gets used in this way.
about 3/4 is used as fuel (gas/diesel/jet) with the rest building your roads and the plastic life we all enjoy.
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/oil-and-petroleum-produc...
Not sure why the discrepancy.
Re: Shell ordered to cut CO2 emissions by 45% in landmark climate case
#245China creates more CO2 than the rest of the world combined. Destroying a company like this while giving China a free pass is essentially killing competition on China’s behalf. Also, there is no live experiment showing CO2 is the source of global warming. All the models are in silica and the IPCC has been hit with a major email breach showing major manipulation of the data to hide the decline of temperature data.
Given this context, if you look at the total amount of co2 emitted by a country throughout history, china is not the highest all, the western world is. And this emission has allowed the western world to gain great amount of wealth. Second, even today, china's co2 per captia is still lower than some western countries, for example, the US. China also produces a lot of world's industrial goods, like metal, chemicals, etc. In china, industrial electricity use accounts for 65% of the total electricity use. Of course, there could be inefficient use of energy in the industrial sectors, but increasingly, China's manufacturing is showing high levels of efficiency and the power efficiency is continue to improve.
I am not saying these to be anti-west. In fact, I am pro west and critical of china on many things. But in terms of energy and co2 emission, I am advocating for analyzing the situation with objectivity. If you view people are equal regardless of race, ethnicity, nationality and beliefs, I hope you understand that people should also have equal access to energy, and in the past, equal rights to release co2. When most of Chinese people can't even have enough food on the table, and I think its fair to allow them to develop first. While rich and well off nations who can afford to invest and reduce co2 footprint should do so.
I am not saying china should get a free pass. As China is becoming developed and people are being better off, it should be accountable to its co2 footprint too. And today we are doing that. We are working heavily to add clean sources of electricity(wind, solar, hydro, nuclear) and heavily promoting electrified transports (EVs, high speed trains, subways). We are implementing carbon trading system and that will have significant cost on co2 emission industries (oil gas, metal). Chinese government is actively shutting down or forcing upgrades emission and energy intensive companies and factories (steel, paper, textile, most recently bitcoin mining, and more). As you can imagine, there are a lot of PR backlash from the workers and business owners here, and the government is spending a lot of effort to minimize the push back and damage, for example, doing jobs transition program, re-training programs, compensations etc. We having been actively treating the ecosystem by 1) foresting, our forest coverage grew by a lot 2) fighting desertification, we actually reduced the desert area by reversing desertification. If you know what this takes, you know it's insanely difficult. 3) building water projects to increase water use efficiency, alleviate drought induced ecosystem collapse. For example, south to north water diversion project played a critical role in restoring wetlands and ground water in the water-lacking north. By planting trees and grass on 10s of thousands square kilometers of barren Loess Plateau and heavily managing agriculture on nearby banks, the yellow river is less yellow now because sediment is held in place and less is running off into the river. We have been doing all of these for the past 50 years.
Special call out for treating deserts. Many people dedicated their lives to live nearby the desserts and planting grass and vegetation to reverse desertification. In the desert, there is nothing but sand and wind. The wind blew up the sand and they hit your face like knives. The wind also blew up anything you plant in it. Yet these people kept trying, kept experimenting with methods to treat the deserts. Today, they have found ways to do exactly that and the results speak for themselves. These people could have easily found something more comfortable to do, yet, they chose to do the hard thing. And they did it for decades. Try imagine that. Their dedication and selflessness is utterly mind blowing. Its amazing feet of human achievement. But these stories are never ever been told to the world, let alone celebrated, because its from China. We don't want to talk about anything positive about China right?
We still have so much to do, all of our current efforts are of course not enough. But we know that, know our place, know the reality. Chinese government pledged peak carbon by 2030. Given all the current signs and activities, I think we are on the right track. I think we will continue to tackle this challenge, stepping harder on the gas peddle, and execute step by step. A steady, continuous, and unrelenting execution is ultimately what it takes to get anything done. I am a skeptic hopeful.
Re: Shell ordered to cut CO2 emissions by 45% in landmark climate case
#246Earlier quoted context omitted.
The difference is that Shell, and other petroleum companies, knew the harm of CO2 for 50 years, consumers only half of that roughly. They could have start investing and do R&D on alternative and mitigation and help us move forward. But no, they just buried it under the rugs to get our money. That is deception, especially when they will not be the ones responsible for cleaning up the mess.
I don't think Shell understood the harms of CO2 any earlier than researchers in the field. Should they punish anyone who initiated a disinformation campaign? absolutely! But blaming them because they sold a product happily used to improved our quality of life seems silly.
"Blame" isn't really the important part here, the important part is enacting corrective action for harm done.
Even if they hadn't conducted a misinformation campaign, Shell profited by causing great harm. As a purely financial entity, without introducing any morality or ethics, they owe the financial damages they have incurred, and perhaps their customers too. Though it's somewhat rare for a customer to be responsible for a product's negative effects, especially when the company profitting off the sale vociferously denies that the harm exists!
But it's important to note that Shell isn't even being asked to pay back the debt they have incurred. They are simply asked to reduce the harm they are enacting, with nine years to change.
This is such a trivial ask in light of the economic harm that Shell has wrought upon their customers, and more importantly, the entire world.
Re: Shell ordered to cut CO2 emissions by 45% in landmark climate case
#247China creates more CO2 than the rest of the world combined. Destroying a company like this while giving China a free pass is essentially killing competition on China’s behalf. Also, there is no live experiment showing CO2 is the source of global warming. All the models are in silica and the IPCC has been hit with a major email breach showing major manipulation of the data to hide the decline of temperature data.
> China creates more CO2 than the rest of the world combined China emits about 30% of world-wide CO2 emissions, so less than the rest of the world combined.[1] > Also, there is no live experiment showing CO2 is the source of global warming. All the models are in silica and the IPCC has been hit with a major email breach showing major manipulation of the data to hide the decline of temperature data. This is typical FU…
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/energy/china-emits...
There fixed it for you.
China get's a free pass on all global warming initiatives while America get's deindustrialized and shift to china to simply escape the carbon regulations.
So not only do we not fix global warming, we give as a gift to china industries critical to the survival of this country.
The lack of outrage of this shows you that the media is complicit in this.
Re: Shell ordered to cut CO2 emissions by 45% in landmark climate case
#248Earlier quoted context omitted.
The difference is that Shell, and other petroleum companies, knew the harm of CO2 for 50 years, consumers only half of that roughly. They could have start investing and do R&D on alternative and mitigation and help us move forward. But no, they just buried it under the rugs to get our money. That is deception, especially when they will not be the ones responsible for cleaning up the mess.
we all know the dangers of plastics, they found micro-plastics in all living things, and huge concentrations in mothers' milk. Are we going to sue dupont in 2 decades as well?
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jul/14/car-tyre...
I don't see how this is controversial at all. If you provide something that causes damages and make a profit, why shouldn't you also be liable for the economic harms you incur in addition to the economic gains you enjoy?
Nobody is forcing these companies to continue doing what they are doing, they do it voluntarily, for money.
Re: Shell ordered to cut CO2 emissions by 45% in landmark climate case
#249Earlier quoted context omitted.
Carbon capture is such an red herring it's not even funny. For years carbon dioxide intense industries have been talking about it in order to avoid clamp downs on their factories/power plants. When it comes down to it, it just isn't a fiscally viable technology.
Just because it is not fiscally viable currently, does not mean that it cannot be in the future.
Re: Shell ordered to cut CO2 emissions by 45% in landmark climate case
#250Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am glad you asked this question because this is what is missing in these situations. Where does the individual bear responsibility in any of this? Instead the public tends to focus on the huge evil corporation who struggles to even keep up with our demand for the very product we are damning them for. There are 1.4 Billion cars on the road.[0] Somehow that is Shells fault? Really? I'm not saying Shell has not commit…
Does individual bear responsebility for lack of public transport, the fact that electric cars didnt even exist not long ago, and for living in a house that was build emitting CO2 and opposed to living in a cave? But lets go with that argument - i am 100% responsible for my CO2. If I am choosing a washing machine, are they labelled with amount of CO2 emitted in production of each? If the company lies to me about this,…
Carbon credits were a scam from the beginning. ( The same guy promoting them pointed to the market he owned as the solution, Al Gore ) Don't get me wrong they have huge potential but are really a false market at the moment. More like protection money or wealth transfer.
> If I am choosing a washing machine, are they labelled with amount of CO2 emitted in production of each? If the company lies to me about this, does anyone go to jail?
I think arguments like this let the individual again place blame on the manufacturer and not that they are an uneducated consumer ( caveat emptor ). Of course if you purchase a washing machine you must understand it took carbon for the entire production of the machine starting with the excavator that pulled the iron out of the ground to the truck that delivered it. The one that takes 'less' carbon is easy, fix the old one, or don't buy one and go the the coin laundry. But blaming the manufacturer who is currently operating within the governing authorities guidelines is disingenuous.