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

271–280 of 322 posts

Re: Shell abandons its plan to offset CO2 emissions

#271

Post by wonderwonder »

UncleMeat wrote: post #219
jackmott42 wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is not an Oil company issue though, this is a voter issue. If voters were concerned about global warming and wanted everything electric they would vote that way. Instead it appears that only about half want it or at least vote in a way that supports it. Others may support it as well but see other issues as more important and vote accordingly. Until the voting public actually acts like this is a major deal, it will be business as usual.

Re: Shell abandons its plan to offset CO2 emissions

#272

Post by AnthonyMouse »

UncleMeat wrote: post #264
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But when you get regulation like generation shifting, corporations and the political right wing collude to say that the regulations are unconstitutional. The argument wasn't that they're unconstitutional, it's that they weren't authorized by Congress. To have the law you have to actually pass the law.

First, "created in a way outside of the federal government's enumerated powers" is a kind of unconstitutionality. But the argument was bullshit. Major Questions Doctrine just exists to say "nu uh, that authorization you have from Congress doesn't count" when it is politically expedient. The Clean Air Act exists. Congress passed it. Roberts just thinks that the law shouldn't be able to do anything controversial but th…

> First, "created in a way outside of the federal government's enumerated powers" is a kind of unconstitutionality.

It wasn't that either. It was the courts saying that the law Congress passed didn't clearly authorize the EPA to do this, so if Congress wants it they need to say so unambiguously.

Notably this means that to change it doesn't require a constitutional amendment but only an ordinary law, which is not what is generally meant by "unconstitutional".

> The Clean Air Act exists. Congress passed it.

And then the courts interpret it and if Congress doesn't like their interpretation they can pass a new law which is more specific.

> Roberts just thinks that the law shouldn't be able to do anything controversial but there is absolutely nowhere in the Constitution that says that Congress' delegation authority is limited only to uncontroversial things.

There is absolutely nowhere in the Constitution that says that Congress even has delegation authority.

Re: Shell abandons its plan to offset CO2 emissions

#273

Post by wcoenen »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #108
datavirtue wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The EV crutch is getting really old. With current tech it is not a solution. Not even remotely. It's great. I love the idea too. I would rather we stop driving around machines that belch out dangerous toxins but a mass migration to EVs will be disastrous. The manufacturers are going hybrid...which is a sensible transition. It should get people used to the freedom of producing/collecting their own energy. Hopefully th…

Disastrous? It's already happened. 38% of new cars in the largest car market in the world are EV's.

Parent is talking about China. Note that the number is not pure battery electric vehicles, it includes hybrids.

https://cleantechnica.com/2023/08/02/38-plugin-vehicle-marke...

Re: Shell abandons its plan to offset CO2 emissions

#274

Post by Aunche »

UtopiaPunk wrote: post #234
Aunche wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> The history of Easter Island is debateable

That doesn't really change that there used to be a lot of forest and larger animals that could have supported a more fulfilling diet that were extinct by the time the Europeans arrived. If society as we know it collapses due to climate change, the people who do survive would also "practice resiliency, cooperation, and perhaps even a degree of environmental stewardship."

> But an authoritarian state is not at all related to a collective of people managing resources

Mao didn't exactly have the resources to enforce a 1984 style or even North Korean style authoritarianism. The authoritarianism was very much enforced by a collective of people. People genuinely wanted to support Mao, which is why they hid how terrible his policies were from him and continued their support for him afterwards.

> What's your vision of a better society?

I think overly reductionist ideas like "capitalism bad" and "Mao authoritarian" end up causing problems like the Great Leap Forward did. Any solution to any societal problem requires a deep understanding across multiple domains, which to be fair is what Ostrom suggests. To be clear, I don't think that it's really anyone's fault, but rather most people don't actually care about the issues to put the work into studying or taking action to them in any meaningful capacity.

Re: Shell abandons its plan to offset CO2 emissions

#275

Post by throwaway894345 »

egberts1 wrote: post #270
throwaway894345 wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The average lifetime co2 emissions per person seems to be in the tens or hundreds of tons (probably on the higher end of the spectrum for Americans, especially those decades in the latter half of the 20th century). Most trees weigh a single digit number of tons when fully grown, and many trees don't survive to full growth and in any case they may release much of that carbon through decay or combustion. It seems prett…

ah, yes, a throwaway account. At least, provide for some citation to be worthy. https://www.globe.gov/explore-science/scientists-blog/archiv...

1. My account is older than yours and has far more reputation. It's no more a throwaway than yours--it just contains the sequence of characters "throwaway".

2. Your link is about co2 exhaled which is a tiny fraction of a person's overall co2 emissions.

3. According to https://scied.ucar.edu/learning-zone/climate-solutions/carbo..., the average American's carbon footprint is about 16 tons of co2 per year multiplied by the average American's lifespan of 77 years equals 1,200 tons of co2. According to every source I could find, the overwhelming majority of trees in the United States weigh a single digit number of tons fully grown, and trees aren't pure-carbon either. Further, many trees don't reach maturity and of those that do many release their carbon via decay and combustion.

Re: Shell abandons its plan to offset CO2 emissions

#276

Post by fwungy »

akamaka wrote: post #256
fwungy wrote: post #68

The rising BRICS dominate hydrocarbons and they aren't giving them up, selling or using. We should be focused on mitigation strategies and superior technology that wins conversion based on market forces and not government mandates and long term subsidies. The Green Suicide of the West isn't going to help climate change, and will probably make it worse.

> The rising BRICS dominate hydrocarbons and they aren't giving them up, selling or using. Surely you’re looking at the wrong statistics. Brazil is a leader in renewable energy, with fossil fuel use already on the decline for the last decade. China is the world’s largest producer of solar and wind power products, and their renewable energy ramp up has only been slowed down by the rest of the world buying up half thei…

Brazil is making ethanol from its vast sugar plantations. They are a special case, and ethanol isn't great on a full lifecycle basis. It doesn't make sense without agricultural surpluses or subsidies, as there are in the USA.

China is the world's mass manufacturer. They will happily make whatever they can sell. If the West is demanding solar panels and windmills due to top down energy policy directives China will happily make and sell them.

There is plenty of fossil fuel available and a huge installed base of ICE's around to use them, especially in the developing world and BRICS. If the West stops buying fossil fuels it only makes them cheaper for those who will happily consume them.

The West needs to use its technological edge to develop market winning sustainable technologies and cheap, safe, electricity production. Crippling itself with unrealistic sustainable energy policies is going to be counter productive to climate change solutions.

Re: Shell abandons its plan to offset CO2 emissions

#277

Post by cutemonster »

trashtester wrote: post #169
axioms_End wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Small difference: we banned chemicals responsible for ozon layer disruption, similar situation with acid rain (talking about 1st world with rain). So it's not like we forgotten, more like it's a non-issue now. Global warming is only going to get worse.

> Global warming is only going to get worse. How much net real harm to humanity do you think global warming causes today? (If we ingnore psychological harm caused mostly by the scare tactics used to prevent it) According to this article, total excess mortality from cold weather is still an order of magnitude higher than from hot weather: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5... As the world has…

Climate change brings more extreme weather, not just warm but also more extreme cold weather. (And storms and floods and fires etc.)

(That's why I try to call it climate change instead.)

Re: Shell abandons its plan to offset CO2 emissions

#278

Post by MaxHoppersGhost »

bitcharmer wrote: post #245
MaxHoppersGhost wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Please enlighten us as to where the electricity comes from

A large part comes from coal and natural gas

Re: Shell abandons its plan to offset CO2 emissions

#279

Post by MaxHoppersGhost »

esafak wrote: post #220
MaxHoppersGhost wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

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

They will be because they save/extend the lives tens of millions of people.

Re: Shell abandons its plan to offset CO2 emissions

#280

Post by MaxHoppersGhost »

kyletns wrote: post #222
MaxHoppersGhost wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[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.

The leaders of these organizations are producing oil. That’s not illegal or bad in itself and on the whole petroleum products have made the world a better place by lifting hundreds of millions of people’s living standards and saving/extending lives.
Post reply on HN