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

51–60 of 322 posts

Re: Shell abandons its plan to offset CO2 emissions

#51

Post by Simorgh »

iamflimflam1 wrote: post #30

I try to remain positive, but climate change is the one area where I have pretty much lost hope. People (and I include myself) are simply unwilling to accept that their lives have to change. Barring some of unforeseen technical miracle the next 20-30 years are going to get increasingly grim.

There is that classic western maxim that evil triumphs when ‘good men do nothing’, but I no longer think this is true.

Evil triumphs when ‘good men’s’ efforts fail.

Climate change represents an inherent risk to humanity, but some climate change mitigation strategies represent a risk to short-term profit incentives.

We are starting to see economic agitation globally as institutions everywhere begin to question the logic of our systems.

This and other factors has led us to a multi-polar world, which is itself creating new problems that inhibit global synchronisation on this issue.

It is a planetary scale problem. It needs a planetary scale solution.

Re: Shell abandons its plan to offset CO2 emissions

#53

Post by TheAtomic »

gwbas1c wrote: post #11

It's worth understanding how disruption works in business. (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Innovator's_Dilemma) Generally, established companies have a lot of trouble, and often fail, adopting when the rules of business change. In this case, Shell is having a lot of trouble adopting to carbon-free (or neurtral) energy. IMO: I think the best approach is to seek out carbon-free (or neutral) energy business model…

Agreed, Shell is f'd. Increasingly I wonder if Apple is in the same boat. An AI-based phone from SpaceX with Starlink connectivity, or from Nvidia, would disrupt their entire business model. And they don't really seem to get AI.

Re: Shell abandons its plan to offset CO2 emissions

#54

Post by BurningFrog »

TinyRick wrote: post #27
DoingIsLearning wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If your view is that all fossil fuel assets are headed towards zero over the next 3-4 decades, then you want to extract every last penny from the existing assets and move them into the pockets of shareholders. I can not locate the long piece article now but I read a piece from someone that effectively got invited into a Shell (UK) think tank and heard exactly that from some vp/executive at a dinner table. That they…

> public opinion would still make it palatable to continue hydrocarbon fuels extraction for another 2 to 3 decades I don't think it's public opinion so much as it is necessity to maintain current standards of living for the next few decades. Renewable energy is still a relatively small fraction of overall energy use, and net global oil consumption has been steadily increasing the past few years (likely to surpass pre…

> I don't think it's public opinion so much as it is necessity to maintain current standards of living for the next few decades.

Those are pretty much the same thing.

Re: Shell abandons its plan to offset CO2 emissions

#55

Post by unlikelymordant »

NoMoreNicksLeft wrote: post #31
riffraff wrote: post #19

The plan that was shelved was about carbon offsets, these have not proven to be particularly effective so maybe not too big a deal. The greater loss is that the new CEO had already scaled down Shell's investment in renewables, setting a target of 4.5% of the total investments in renewables by 2025[0]. Some other Oil&Gas companies seem to be a bit more inclined to actually invest in renewables, or at least pay lip ser…

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 increase in demand drives up the price of offsets, which increases supply and investment in better carbon capture techniques and scaling. Im lumping in things like direct air capture, bioenergy carbon capture and storage, and enhanced weathering as offset generating technologies that are currently too expensive to be widespread, but with higher carbon prices would become practical.

Re: Shell abandons its plan to offset CO2 emissions

#56

Post by robnado »

IKantRead wrote: post #32
robnado wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The earth is getting warmer. To try to guilt people about it achieves nothing. The only action humanity can take at this point is to predict the effects of global warming and build infrastructure to slow it down, mitigate it or plan for the mass migrations.

I do believe that included in "only action" is: keep fossil fuels in the ground. The idea that we can only mitigate is insane. Yes we've already signed up for a lot of pain as a civilization, but as long we keep burning fossil fuels we are looking at an increasingly worse future. It's not like a smoker who has gotten lung cancer, where the best we can do is try to ease the pain, and more smoking won't really matter.…

We can slow down the use of fossil fuels, but as long as we are 8 billion people on the planet and we find no better way to produce ammonia, steel, concrete and plastics, we will keep needing huge amounts of fossil fuels.

Personally, I feel that the solution is to gradually raise the tax rate on fossil fuels in order to disincentives their use and incentivize the production of alternatives. We've done this for cigarettes and it has worked. However, you will probably have the vaping equivalent of petrol that will come out and gain more marketshare.

The second solution is to make energy so cheap and abundant that petrol becomes unattractive.

To massively and suddenly restrict petrol use is a great way to start riots and ensure that your government will either be overthrown or has to descend into tyranny.

Re: Shell abandons its plan to offset CO2 emissions

#57

Post by fulafel »

iamflimflam1 wrote: post #30

I try to remain positive, but climate change is the one area where I have pretty much lost hope. People (and I include myself) are simply unwilling to accept that their lives have to change. Barring some of unforeseen technical miracle the next 20-30 years are going to get increasingly grim.

COVID showed I think that people and institutions are quite willing and capable of concerted action if they understand there's real threat to human welfare. Imperfecly, sure, but far from hopeless.

Re: Shell abandons its plan to offset CO2 emissions

#58

Post by matthewdgreen »

DoingIsLearning wrote: post #20
matthewdgreen wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If your view is that these companies are multi-decade sustainable businesses, then you want to invest in shoring up the firms' reputation and drilling new wells. If your view is that all fossil fuel assets are headed towards zero over the next 3-4 decades, then you want to extract every last penny from the existing assets and move them into the pockets of shareholders.

> If your view is that all fossil fuel assets are headed towards zero over the next 3-4 decades, then you want to extract every last penny from the existing assets and move them into the pockets of shareholders. I can not locate the long piece article now but I read a piece from someone that effectively got invited into a Shell (UK) think tank and heard exactly that from some vp/executive at a dinner table. That they…

I guess my question is at what point does the decline in fossil extraction become self-reinforcing. If extraction is going down, firms won’t invest in developing new resources. This means constraints on supply leading to higher prices. That in turn will drive less consumption (particularly as non-fossil alternatives become mainstream.) There is a potential feedback loop here that drives things towards zero much more rapidly than you might imagine. Anyway, one can hope.

Re: Shell abandons its plan to offset CO2 emissions

#59

Post by plopz »

NoMoreNicksLeft wrote: post #31
riffraff wrote: post #19

The plan that was shelved was about carbon offsets, these have not proven to be particularly effective so maybe not too big a deal. The greater loss is that the new CEO had already scaled down Shell's investment in renewables, setting a target of 4.5% of the total investments in renewables by 2025[0]. Some other Oil&Gas companies seem to be a bit more inclined to actually invest in renewables, or at least pay lip ser…

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

Re: Shell abandons its plan to offset CO2 emissions

#60

Post by digitalsushi »

iamflimflam1 wrote: post #30

I try to remain positive, but climate change is the one area where I have pretty much lost hope. People (and I include myself) are simply unwilling to accept that their lives have to change. Barring some of unforeseen technical miracle the next 20-30 years are going to get increasingly grim.

I would rather die than be slightly uncomfortable.

The above is my mockery of how I expect we will in 40 years

Post reply on HN