Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Shell admits 1.5C climate goal means immediate end to fossil fuel growth

resilience.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 356 posts

Re: Shell admits 1.5C climate goal means immediate end to fossil fuel growth

#271

Post by legitster »

NickC25 wrote: post #257
rektide wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Open secrets lists oil & gas at $123 million/year of lobbying, #8th highest spender #3 highest spender is insurance, at $158m, #2 electronics at $221m, pharma at #1 $373m. I too think we have to try to be reasonable, & there's a lot of factors, and it's hard. They are a gigantic lobbying force, quite close to top 3 though.

Right - my point exactly. $123m a year is serious coin. A few puff-piece PR releases saying "we're going green! yay us!" are pennies in comparison.

Sure - but setting aside lobbying and PR releases their own capex reports show that US domestic companies were seriously cutting back on oil exploration between 2014 and 2020. And the investments they were making were overwhelmingly to (lower carbon) natural gas.

To put it another way, in that period they reduced their lobbying budget by $50 million and their production investment by $400 billion. It is the lobbying that is pennies.

Re: Shell admits 1.5C climate goal means immediate end to fossil fuel growth

#272

Post by red-iron-pine »

rektide wrote: post #235
legitster wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, let's not overrate the lobbying of the Oil and Gas industry. They don't even crack the top 5 sources of lobbying dollars in the US. They are there right alongside lobbyists for solar and wind and nuclear and etc. (And let's also not set aside that most of the oil extracted in the world is not done by private companies but by government ventures). And again, their lobbying is a drop in the bucket as to their a…

Open secrets lists oil & gas at $123 million/year of lobbying, #8th highest spender #3 highest spender is insurance, at $158m, #2 electronics at $221m, pharma at #1 $373m. I too think we have to try to be reasonable, & there's a lot of factors, and it's hard. They are a gigantic lobbying force, quite close to top 3 though.

It's also worth keeping in mind that they don't have to lobby -- US O&G is a strategic source of strength and have had power that went all the way to the top. The Bush family, for example, produced two Presidents, and the Bush fam were all about oil.

No need to spend the money when you get it for free.

Meanwhile it's clear to the average American that healthcare is broken as shit and is ruining lives daily; takes a lot of money to keep things looking good for Pharma. Ditto for much of the tech world.

Re: Shell admits 1.5C climate goal means immediate end to fossil fuel growth

#273

Post by nobody9999 »

ericmay wrote: post #111
whimsicalism wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, but, to a large extent, Americans love the burbs and you are not going to be able to get them to vote for their demise, no matter how many benefits you can see .

Well I don't think all Americans love the suburbs for sure. Home prices in the city where I live for example seem to be skyrocketing compared to the suburbs and that's despite bad schools. I think you are right in that many Americans won't "vote" for a lot of these benefits. Again the "300 new manufacturing jobs" headline sounds better than "16 small businesses and a 2% drop in obesity-related premature deaths over a…

>[2] Please note that there's nothing wrong with cars existing, the main problem is cars being a hard requirement (government mandate really) for every single thing you do in your life.

I'm not really sure what you mean by "government mandate" in this context.

I've lived for more than half a century and have never owned a car or attempted to purchase one. In all that time, no one (affiliated with a government or not) has ever even hinted that I must have a car.

I'm not playing "gotcha" here, I just don't understand what you're getting at.

Sure, there are many places (especially in the US) where having access to a personal, motorized vehicle provides access to many of the necessities of modern life, but that's not a result of government fiat/mandate.

Rather it was population increases, cheap oil, poor land use decisions, bigotry and a host of other factors -- including government support for such decisions -- that are at the heart of those results.

Perhaps my take is too US-centric and/or I'm missing something important.

tl;dr: Governments supporting the status quo/big economic actors creating/maintaining unsustainable environments is bad public policy, but doesn't add up to a "mandate," IMNSHO.

Re: Shell admits 1.5C climate goal means immediate end to fossil fuel growth

#274

Post by red-iron-pine »

vel0city wrote: post #247
Tiktaalik wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What political pressure are you alluding to? For decades now in Canada companies have been endlessly lobbying the government to allow for more expansion of pipelines to enable more production and more growth. There is nothing new that has changed their approach.

Look at the political strain that develops when gasoline prices increase in the US and Canada. Loads of people start demanding cheaper gas and expect the government to step in and ensure low-ish gas prices. The gas tax hasn't budged since 1993 despite really needing it, largely because of the backlash politicians would get for making gasoline more expensive.

nationally, no, there hasn't been much change but many states have high ones; PA comes to mind.

Re: Shell admits 1.5C climate goal means immediate end to fossil fuel growth

#275

Post by brenns10 »

throwaway22032 wrote: post #79
CalRobert wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The geography's fine, it's the zoning that destroyed it. You don't need to have your entire country be oceans of parking with a few buildings sprinkled in the middle.

I agree, I mean the human geography, not the size of the country, sorry if that was unclear. A bit like how London couldn't turn into LA now without demolishing half of it. We tried to build a couple of freeways in the 60's and failed.

To be fair, that's exactly how LA turned into LA: they ripped up streetcar lines, demolished parts of the city to make room for interstate highways, and changed the development rules to require low density and lots of parking.

Which is to say, American cities were not born with the car centrism, they were demolished and rebuilt with it. The reason it succeeded here, but not in London, may have a lot to do with the insane corruption due to the auto industry here (but we call it lobbying, not corruption, so it's fine :P), and also due to the hyper racist forces that drove white flight to suburbs. Also the incredible amounts of federal money that went to the interstate highway system.

Re: Shell admits 1.5C climate goal means immediate end to fossil fuel growth

#276

Post by slothtrop »

mnky9800n wrote: post #268
slothtrop wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Emissions rise as a function of demand, mainly from east Asia, particularly China (holding demand constant, emissions would otherwise lower, since combustion technology grows more efficient over time). The homegrown demand rises because we are padding our numbers with immigration to boost GDP (enriching the wealthy, primarily), and newcomers adopt the same carbon footprint as the rest of us, through consumption. They…

a third of the co2 produced comes from electricity. Rich nations could subsidize GDP growth in developing nations by building nuclear and renewables there. These countries will accelerate the demise of humanity if they burn coal instead. They don't have the right to do it. Neither did developed nations but they already did it. We do not have the right to determine the fate of the planet that we share with all other l…

Worth reminding that the IPCC stance is not apocalyptic, in contrast to what you seem to suggest.

Rich countries are scarcely getting back around to upscaling nuclear themselves, much less subsidizing it in others. One advantage the developing countries have is they don't have the baggage of existing extensive infrastructure for electricity, and some renewables can be deployed in a more decentralized fashion (i.e. solar). I believe this is currently happening in India in limited fashion.

Add to the fact, renewable tech, and mitigating tech like carbon capture, is very much subsidized in the West. The necessary shift from the private sector is going to cost trillions; it's happening already, but not overnight, and the angsty projection against barons and the wealthy class won't make it go any faster. I mean, they needed to hear the message, but there's no reason to believe it isn't loud and clear at this point.

Re: Shell admits 1.5C climate goal means immediate end to fossil fuel growth

#277

Post by whimsicalism »

criddell wrote: post #267
whimsicalism wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Guess people will have to move to more dense areas if they want to survive financially then.

For that to happen, living in a dense urban area needs to be much less expensive than living out in the middle of nowhere. The average income in Mississippi is around $25k / year. I'm not sure what the distribution curve looks like, but I'd guess 2/3 of the population make at least $20k / year. Cities should be designed so that a person can live a good life on $20k / year in a city.

Yes, I agree. In many places, this is the case - but not in the US.

Re: Shell admits 1.5C climate goal means immediate end to fossil fuel growth

#278

Post by whimsicalism »

digging wrote: post #202
whimsicalism wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally I think you are underestimating evolution - we can fix carbon in other ways, but I agree life will be dramatically different.

It isn't the poster who's developed this theory. It's a matter of chemistry. It's possible life could persist, but we don't know of chemical processes that would make it possible, so we shouldn't expect that it can.

> we don't know of chemical processes that would make it possible

C4 carbon fixation would already last a lot longer than C3 carbon fixation. Probably some other sources of carbon that can be found.

Re: Shell admits 1.5C climate goal means immediate end to fossil fuel growth

#279

Post by nobody9999 »

vharuck wrote: post #209
maerF0x0 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMO What we're consistently failing to see is that necessity is the mother of invention. Mankind has summoned seemingly unfathomable ingenuity and effort in response to dire need. It seems it will be Gen Alpha/Beta who will have their "ww2 moment" but in response to existential threat from Environmental and second order societal collapse. Likely changes will include mass adoption of nuclear (potentially including Fus…

>It clearly wont be the end of mankind, just mankind as we currently experience it. Cold comfort if the new experience will be an economic crash and global food shortage. And you're assuming that, once things are terrible enough that political and economic powers can no longer ignore climate change, there will still be available solutions to have something better than a life of war and hunger. Cities have fallen to d…

>Cities have fallen to disasters throughout history (easy example is Pompeii). Cultures vanish. The only reason anyone's still around to talk about it is because natural disasters, wars, and human errors have largely been localized. Climate change won't be.

The "Bronze Age Collapse"[0] wasn't global, but it certainly wasn't "localized" in the sense that (I think) you're using it.

Yes, I'm picking a nit there. That said, you're otherwise spot on.

And that's not breaking news either, and it's been discussed ad infinitum, Fall of Civilizations[1] brings your point into a pretty clear focus. I highly recommend it!

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B965f8AcNbw

[1] https://www.youtube.com/@FallofCivilizations/videos

Re: Shell admits 1.5C climate goal means immediate end to fossil fuel growth

#280

Post by ericmay »

nobody9999 wrote: post #273
ericmay wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well I don't think all Americans love the suburbs for sure. Home prices in the city where I live for example seem to be skyrocketing compared to the suburbs and that's despite bad schools. I think you are right in that many Americans won't "vote" for a lot of these benefits. Again the "300 new manufacturing jobs" headline sounds better than "16 small businesses and a 2% drop in obesity-related premature deaths over a…

>[2] Please note that there's nothing wrong with cars existing, the main problem is cars being a hard requirement (government mandate really) for every single thing you do in your life. I'm not really sure what you mean by "government mandate" in this context. I've lived for more than half a century and have never owned a car or attempted to purchase one. In all that time, no one (affiliated with a government or not)…

Sure I can take a stab at it.

For the vast majority of America in order to participate in life you have to drive a car somewhere to do something. So this could be driving to get a prescription filled, it could be going to school, to work, etc. The way the government "mandates" it is by only building additional car-only infrastructure (highways, etc.) and using zoning policies that dictate that SFH and big-box retailers are the only thing that can be built. Of course places like, say, New York City have public transit but for most of America the government effectively mandates that you use a car.

While the government may not explicitly state that "you must use cars" if you take a look at state transportation department budgets, for example, you'll see that the funding is all for cars. We could split hairs and say it's not a "mandate" but I think it is effectively a mandate and if you asked, most politicians would say something like "Americans love their cars and freedom" which means "we support car-only infrastructure".

Post reply on HN