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

291–300 of 322 posts

Re: Shell abandons its plan to offset CO2 emissions

#291

Post by Aachen »

steve_adams_86 wrote: post #173
Aachen wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anyone who drives a heavy vehicle alone is using immense amounts of power (hundreds of horses' at once, by approximation), it takes some infrastructure but with wind, sun, and water we can power that. What makes you say that your livelihood depends on an amount of energy so large that it's really bad? Why couldn't that be generated sustainably? Why not talk to your employer about a step in that direction, given that…

> Why couldn't that be generated sustainably? It very likely could, and I'd happily pay for it. Like, my Mac Studio with an M2 Max in it probably took, all said, and absurd about of resources to create... But it only cost me $3k or something. Well, if it works as long as it should, it'll easily help me earn over half a million dollars. I'd rather pay far more for the computer and cover the expenses of the externaliti…

> Yet, something electric would take a very long time to "break even" on the footprint

Of course, replacing a fossil car that is still nearly new is the greater evil. I fully support driving on gasoline if that's genuinely the better thing to do.

What one can do in the meantime is use one of the available options to suck the CO2 back out of the air. It's expensive, but if you say you're happy to pay the premium given your income if only there were options, well, that's an option, and can be applied to the computer purchase or electricity production, too. It does get prohibitively expensive when including every emission, but it's not all or nothing, and also, with solar panels reducing the electricity need, a green energy provider covering the grid demand (that's the best one can reasonably do after solar panels), etc., it should be possible to reduce the need for carbon capture quite a bit already today, and more in the future as more industries greenify

Re: Shell abandons its plan to offset CO2 emissions

#292

Post by akamaka »

fwungy wrote: post #290
akamaka wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There isn’t plenty of cheap fossil fuel available, it’s becoming more expensive to extract what’s left with each decade that goes by. The high price of oil is a huge drag on economy, with every spike causing inflation and reducing economic growth. The USA has already developed technology needed, and renewables are now the cheapest energy source. The countries that scale them up quickly will enjoy smooth economic grow…

Tell that to Putin. There's plenty of oil. They've been saying its going to run out for 50 years. Dead fields have replenished themselves.

I’m not talking about some peak oil collapse theory, but the actually reality that the return on investment of extracting oil is steadily eroding. Have a look at the data yourself:

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsta.2013.012...

Re: Shell abandons its plan to offset CO2 emissions

#293

Post by throwaway894345 »

MaxHoppersGhost wrote: post #278
bitcharmer wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please enlighten us as to where the electricity comes from

A large part comes from coal and natural gas

A diminishing part. In my state only 1/3 of electricity generated is from fossil fuels and that number is falling quickly.

Re: Shell abandons its plan to offset CO2 emissions

#294

Post by UncleMeat »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #272
UncleMeat wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 unconstitutional" does not mean "would require a constitutional amendment to exist."

Yes, Congress can pass a new law. That doesn't make the supreme court's decision absolutely fucking rank idiocy based entirely in political goals covered in the thinnest veneer of jurisprudence.

Yes, Gorsuch thinks that Congress can't delegate at all and basically all execute agencies should be destroyed. We know. He'll ride out climate change in a mansion.

Re: Shell abandons its plan to offset CO2 emissions

#295

Post by AnthonyMouse »

UncleMeat wrote: post #294
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 unconstitutional" does not mean "would require a constitutional amendment to exist." Yes, Congress can pass a new law. That doesn't make the supreme court's decision absolutely fucking rank idiocy based entirely in political goals covered in the thinnest veneer of jurisprudence. Yes, Gorsuch thinks that Congress can't delegate at all and basically all execute agencies should be destroyed. We know. He'll ride out…

> "Is unconstitutional" does not mean "would require a constitutional amendment to exist."

It kind of does. Your version would make any interpretation of the law a constitutional question. The plaintiff in a civil case claims they're entitled to damages but the court found their argument unconstitutional because it's Congress and not plaintiffs who make the law?

> That doesn't make the supreme court's decision absolutely fucking rank idiocy based entirely in political goals covered in the thinnest veneer of jurisprudence.

It feels pretty consistent with a "separation of powers" interpretation of how laws get made. Do you really think they come to a different result if it was Trump's EPA saying they had to replace renewables with "reliable" generation methods over whatever pretext? And wouldn't that be the result you want?

> Yes, Gorsuch thinks that Congress can't delegate at all and basically all execute agencies should be destroyed. We know. He'll ride out climate change in a mansion.

They could exist without making laws. Agency drafts a bill, proposes it to Congress, Congress votes on it. It's democratic.

It seems like people have forgotten how to compromise. You want a climate change bill, Republicans don't. Republicans want school vouchers, or to reduce the number of federal employees, or immigration reform, or lower taxes. You give them something they want, you get something you want.

Re: Shell abandons its plan to offset CO2 emissions

#296

Post by corethree »

GenericPoster wrote: post #210
corethree wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you work for a corporation? Most likely you do. What is a corporation made up of but the people themselves? We all have a choice. It's just a hard choice that you are not willing to make. You aren't willing to sacrifice. If the corporation made the choice for you, you'd still be paying the same cost. It's no different. You either stop buying oil or they stop selling oil to you. It's just a blame game your playing…

I appreciate the idealism but that's an incredibly naive take. The idea of "just walk" or "just ride a bike" or "just move" or "just grow your own food" is nonsensical when talking about US infrastructure. Humans have limits and those that are at the bottom of the economic status, the ones who would be affected the most don't need another self imposed hurdle. Their lives are already hard enough as it is. There was a…

This isn't idealism. You're the one that's idealistic.

I'm saying nobody will make the right choice. Not even you or me. None of us has the fortitude to do what it takes and therefore most likely the worst case scenario for global warming will play out.

It's the idealists who make up alternative stories to blame other entities other then themselves. It's the idealists who think there's a solution.

There is a solution but that solution is so impractical it's basically no solution.

Re: Shell abandons its plan to offset CO2 emissions

#297

Post by corethree »

matthewdgreen wrote: post #241
corethree wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The elites didn't construct the market. You're just looking for someone to blame. The market came as an emergent property. The elites are at fault as much as you and I are at fault. The story of oil is a human crisis caused by humanity itself. We like to blame specific groups but that's just not reality.

If this was true, then the for-profit fossil fuel industry wouldn't spend so much money on PR and political lobbying. They'd return that money to their shareholders instead.

You and I enable that behavior by buying oil.

Re: Shell abandons its plan to offset CO2 emissions

#298

Post by c1sc0 »

nancyhn wrote: post #96
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…

Climate related deaths have declined by 98% over the last century. You are 50x less likely to die of a climate-related cause than in 1920. 8x as many people die from cold temperatures as warm ones. The planet is more green today than a century ago. CO2 is plant food. We need more energy, not less. Renewable, nuclear, and yes even fossil fuels. It brings people out of poverty and increases standard of living. When hum…

Climate related deaths have declined by 98% over the last century.

> Average life expectancy has increased because child mortality is down, do we stop medical research?

You are 50x less likely to die of a climate-related cause than in 1920.

> Great. Let's keep investing in mitigation AND prevention. It seems to work!

8x as many people die from cold temperatures as warm ones.

> Climate change is not just global WARMING.

The planet is more green today than a century ago. CO2 is plant food.

> At the cost of loss of biodiversity. We don't just need green, but diverse green.

We need more energy, not less. Renewable, nuclear, and yes even fossil fuels.

> Agreed. (Surprise!) But I'd prefer to see fossil used for industry and not energy. Renewable & nuclear should be sufficient.

It brings people out of poverty and increases standard of living. When humans move up Maslow's hierarchy they start to care about the environment. CO2 emissions have been decreasing in the US since 2007.

> Agreed. Moving up people on Maslow's hierarchy also causes them to need to have less kids (in a sane environment with a good social safety net for old age) which should stabilise the population by 2060.

Re: Shell abandons its plan to offset CO2 emissions

#299

Post by unlikelymordant »

akamaka wrote: post #230
corethree wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

The next trend line to look at is that without pulling co2 out of atmosphere, just quitting fossil fuels still gets us to 3.2 degrees of warming (this is IPCC modelling). This is climate armageddon. So the growth in renewable energy means nothing if we dont get real good at offseting emissions.

Re: Shell abandons its plan to offset CO2 emissions

#300

Post by trashtester »

marcosdumay wrote: post #250
trashtester wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see any way electricity could fall anywhere near that much in 20 years. For that to happen, we either need a revolutionary decrease in the price of nuclear power, a radical improvement in the price of dependable renewable energy (probably involving a lot of batteries) or some hard AI takeoff that makes EVERYTHING cheaper. Keep in mind that most countries are trying to electrify most parts of the economy, so w…

It's actually very likely. As long as you only consume it while the Sun is shinning, at the place of generation. This set of restrictions is allowing enough for a surprisingly large set of industrial applications (anything where energy costs are larger than capital ones). In fact, we are not far from that. Solar is already a few times cheaper than the grid energy on those conditions.

My post was that electricity prices would come back by a factor of 10 or more. While that was qualified by "not Antarctic winter", it did not say that it would be only while the sun was shining, either.

That was what I objected to.

And if the average price falls by 90%, there number of industrial application where it would make sense to consume only part of the day, drops by a lot.

Post reply on HN