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

91–100 of 322 posts

Re: Shell abandons its plan to offset CO2 emissions

#91

Post by mdgrech23 »

civilized wrote: post #78
sobkas wrote: post #67

Then there should be consequences for destroying environment and making earth inhabitable for humans. Oil industry knew that burning fossil fuels will lead to global warming. Plastic industry knew that recycling is a total sham, and most of it will at best end up on a landfill at worts everywhere including our food. They knew but then they lied to us to make more profits. Maybe we should take that ill gotten profits…

I think developed nations collectively bought into fossil fuel-driven civilization, so it seems like scapegoating to lay all the blame at the feet of the producers. But like you say, it is appropriate to blame the producers for hiding what they knew about the greenhouse effect and well-funded lobbying and propaganda campaigns to deny and minimize it.

I think is the uncomfortable truth is we're all to blame for a certain extent. People def hide evidence and acted to their own benefit but to a certain extent so many of us were known accomplices.

Re: Shell abandons its plan to offset CO2 emissions

#92

Post by UncleMeat »

civilized wrote: post #78
sobkas wrote: post #67

Then there should be consequences for destroying environment and making earth inhabitable for humans. Oil industry knew that burning fossil fuels will lead to global warming. Plastic industry knew that recycling is a total sham, and most of it will at best end up on a landfill at worts everywhere including our food. They knew but then they lied to us to make more profits. Maybe we should take that ill gotten profits…

I think developed nations collectively bought into fossil fuel-driven civilization, so it seems like scapegoating to lay all the blame at the feet of the producers. But like you say, it is appropriate to blame the producers for hiding what they knew about the greenhouse effect and well-funded lobbying and propaganda campaigns to deny and minimize it.

It is true that the people demanded the lifestyle provided by fossil fuel emissions. But corporations didn't just say "oh if you insist." When new policies and regulations are attempted that will not affect the lifestyle of the people but will eat into corporate profits, they fight tooth and nail.

An honest corporation that was just acting to serve the needs of the people wouldn't do something like fight to reduce the exxon valdez spill fine by 100x or raise a fit when regulatory agencies mandate generation shifting.

Re: Shell abandons its plan to offset CO2 emissions

#93

Post by Aachen »

BLanen wrote: post #49

Good. Any implementation of carbon offsetting is a sham anyway and Shell's plan didn't even offset its product's emmision but only its own business process(because offsetting the emissions of the products would be many times more costly than the product itself)

Even if it's mostly a sham, that's better than nothing

Re: Shell abandons its plan to offset CO2 emissions

#94

Post by unlikelymordant »

NoMoreNicksLeft wrote: post #63
unlikelymordant wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> The increase in demand drives up the price of offsets, Except there are limits which the demand, for the most part, can't overcome. > Im lumping in things like direct air capture, bioenergy carbon capture and storage, All of these things are energy intensive, aren't they? So as energy becomes more expensive, so do they. Demand never gets quite so high that it's worth it to pay for this, because the price is always…

A lot of carbon needs to be removed from the atmosphere, something needs to do it at scale. The IPCC says we’ll need global cumulative net-negative emissions of 380 GtCO2 from 2050 to 2100 to return to 1.5°C after a likely overshoot. Focusing solely on emissions reduction will lead us directly to a global warming induced dystopia.

Re: Shell abandons its plan to offset CO2 emissions

#95

Post by throwaway71271 »

sobkas wrote: post #67

Then there should be consequences for destroying environment and making earth inhabitable for humans. Oil industry knew that burning fossil fuels will lead to global warming. Plastic industry knew that recycling is a total sham, and most of it will at best end up on a landfill at worts everywhere including our food. They knew but then they lied to us to make more profits. Maybe we should take that ill gotten profits…

As Jacques Ellul says (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOCtu-rXfPk): when the bridge collapses, who is to blame?

Re: Shell abandons its plan to offset CO2 emissions

#96

Post by nancyhn »

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 humans move up Maslow's hierarchy they start to care about the environment. CO2 emissions have been decreasing in the US since 2007.

Re: Shell abandons its plan to offset CO2 emissions

#97

Post by Aachen »

cagenut wrote: post #3

[flagged]

Insert "buying from" before the last word

This is entirely within people's own hands. Not all of those people are you and me, it also includes our boss who decides to buy combustion vehicles for employees still (what year is it?), but in the end it's individual humans that decide for themselves whether to continue paying for oil products when there are alternatives available such as with personal vehicles. Maybe a majority overrules you if you're in some committee or board, but every vote was again an individual's choice. I don't see Shell or any oil company as being fully and solely responsible here

Re: Shell abandons its plan to offset CO2 emissions

#98

Post by trashtester »

civilized wrote: post #78
sobkas wrote: post #67

Then there should be consequences for destroying environment and making earth inhabitable for humans. Oil industry knew that burning fossil fuels will lead to global warming. Plastic industry knew that recycling is a total sham, and most of it will at best end up on a landfill at worts everywhere including our food. They knew but then they lied to us to make more profits. Maybe we should take that ill gotten profits…

I think developed nations collectively bought into fossil fuel-driven civilization, so it seems like scapegoating to lay all the blame at the feet of the producers. But like you say, it is appropriate to blame the producers for hiding what they knew about the greenhouse effect and well-funded lobbying and propaganda campaigns to deny and minimize it.

If the world stopped consuming fossil fuels today, overpopulation would no longer be an issue in about a year or two.

Because 90% of the population would die.

Re: Shell abandons its plan to offset CO2 emissions

#99

Post by agloe_dreams »

TheAtomic wrote: post #53
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.

> And they don't really seem to get AI.

To say this is to not know how Apple operates. They have been shipping local AI in phones for a decade now. Every phone has one of the best neural processors out there. Apple is better prepared than anyone. And that's before considering their remarkable restraint to not release something until they are happy with it. They are 100% working on LLMs and I'm sure they will do it their own way. This isnt some sort of fanboy post, it's their story. From OLED to the Mac transition to Apple silicon. Slowly, then all at once.

Re: Shell abandons its plan to offset CO2 emissions

#100

Post by coding123 »

UncleMeat wrote: post #92
civilized wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think developed nations collectively bought into fossil fuel-driven civilization, so it seems like scapegoating to lay all the blame at the feet of the producers. But like you say, it is appropriate to blame the producers for hiding what they knew about the greenhouse effect and well-funded lobbying and propaganda campaigns to deny and minimize it.

It is true that the people demanded the lifestyle provided by fossil fuel emissions. But corporations didn't just say "oh if you insist." When new policies and regulations are attempted that will not affect the lifestyle of the people but will eat into corporate profits, they fight tooth and nail. An honest corporation that was just acting to serve the needs of the people wouldn't do something like fight to reduce th…

I think we've KNOWN what this shit does to the air and water for at least, what 40 years?

At what point do we blame ourselves to increasing fossil fuel usage, even in the what, past 5 years?

Post reply on HN