|
Shell says it wants to double green energy investmentquote:Shell has declared an ambition to double the amount it spends on green energy to $4bn (£3.2bn) a year, in a sign of how the Anglo-Dutch company is looking to speed up its move to a future beyond oil and gas. Baby steps, I guess.
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2018 10:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 19:10 |
|
|
Martian posted:Shell says it wants to double green energy investment How about you make it quadruple and then we will talk of not putting you against the wall...first.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2018 15:16
|
|
|
Martian posted:Shell says it wants to double green energy investment
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2018 20:13
|
|
|
Gortarius posted:What are the odds of others following suite?
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2018 21:32
|
|
|
friendbot2000 posted:How about you make it quadruple and then we will talk of not putting you against the wall...first. The entirety of the executive board past and present are going to have to give up their material wealth and spend the rest of their existence as indentured servants to humanity to avoid what they deserve. Shell actively suppressed the fact that our level of oil use was going to inevitably kill billions of people due to war famine and climate loss, so they could make an extra bucks. I don't even want to post what I think those people deserve, because the hatred that comes from that nasty part of my lizard brain scares even me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2018 22:11
|
|
|
I asked a few pages back about legit carbon offsets / sequestering / etc but got nada. I'm just curious what other people are voluntarily doing to offset their footprint past reducing? Even if you drive an EV, if your power is from natural gas you're still up the creek. I found companies offering "offsets", but the price seems to good to be true... then there's people working on sequestering carbon, but it's "not economically viable" yet. Viable or not, is there a legit price point to remove X tons of CO2 or is that just really not a thing yet?
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2018 22:12
|
|
|
funkatron3000 posted:I asked a few pages back about legit carbon offsets / sequestering / etc but got nada. I'm just curious what other people are voluntarily doing to offset their footprint past reducing? Even if you drive an EV, if your power is from natural gas you're still up the creek. I found companies offering "offsets", but the price seems to good to be true... then there's people working on sequestering carbon, but it's "not economically viable" yet. Viable or not, is there a legit price point to remove X tons of CO2 or is that just really not a thing yet? carbon offset credits are horseshit
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2018 22:25
|
|
|
Removing government subsidies for oil and gas would do more than carbon offset horseshit ever will. But to answer your question, no, not within our current system of economics.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2018 22:29
|
|
|
you cannot buy your way out of the problem of everyone thinking they can just buy their way out of every problem
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2018 22:43
|
|
|
funkatron3000 posted:I asked a few pages back about legit carbon offsets / sequestering / etc but got nada. I'm just curious what other people are voluntarily doing to offset their footprint past reducing? Even if you drive an EV, if your power is from natural gas you're still up the creek. I found companies offering "offsets", but the price seems to good to be true... then there's people working on sequestering carbon, but it's "not economically viable" yet. Viable or not, is there a legit price point to remove X tons of CO2 or is that just really not a thing yet? There is not a legit price point in the sense that there aren't companies doing this on a meaningful scale. It's not economically feasible because the cost is so high that if people were willing to make that kind of sacrifice in sufficient numbers we wouldn't have a problem with climate change in the first place. So... you're not getting the answer you want from this thread because there isn't a company that does what you want and the ones that do exist are basically feelgood bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2018 23:13
|
|
|
funkatron3000 posted:I asked a few pages back about legit carbon offsets / sequestering / etc but got nada. I'm just curious what other people are voluntarily doing to offset their footprint past reducing? Even if you drive an EV, if your power is from natural gas you're still up the creek. I found companies offering "offsets", but the price seems to good to be true... then there's people working on sequestering carbon, but it's "not economically viable" yet. Viable or not, is there a legit price point to remove X tons of CO2 or is that just really not a thing yet? EV's being charged by natural gas power plants, while not ideal, will reduce the carbon output compared to most conventional automobiles. A plug-in recharged by a natural gas-powered plant is like driving a car that gets 58 miles per gallon. Here's a chart that gives you effective mpg by state:  From: https://www.ucsusa.org/clean-vehicles/electric-vehicles/life-cycle-ev-emissions#.XCP9mC2ZPrI Even better reduce one's driving altogether. My work-week is car-free, bike and trains.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2018 23:17
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:you cannot buy your way out of the problem of everyone thinking they can just buy their way out of every problem Isn't buying our way out of the problem, voluntarily or otherwise, exactly what needs to happen? At least extrapolating from CO2 being an externality that's not currently priced in. Like, no, using fossil fuels and just figuratively dumping the CO2 into your neighbors yard isn't ok, you need to either pay to capture the CO2 yourself, pay someone to do it in bulk more efficiently, pay to switch to a non-fossil alternative, or stop doing whatever needs fossil fuels altogether. And do that across the entire global economy. It seemed like dedicating a part of my personal income to dealing with my personal CO2 footprint was a step in the right direction, but maybe not, I don't know. edit: read the newest couple comments, actual price is just still stupid high, drat.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2018 23:30
|
|
|
funkatron3000 posted:Isn't buying our way out of the problem, voluntarily or otherwise, exactly what needs to happen? At least extrapolating from CO2 being an externality that's not currently priced in. Like, no, using fossil fuels and just figuratively dumping the CO2 into your neighbors yard isn't ok, you need to either pay to capture the CO2 yourself, pay someone to do it in bulk more efficiently, pay to switch to a non-fossil alternative, or stop doing whatever needs fossil fuels altogether. And do that across the entire global economy. You're assuming it's okay to dump toxic waste on rivers so long as you pay your fines.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2018 00:18
|
|
|
I was trying to come up with a good analogy for this, but I just can't. We're in this mess one because the long term costs of pollution are not, and cannot be accurately measured so as to be accounted for under a market capitalism system. And even if it were, the ensuing hypothetical result would be removed from ethical considerations. Is it alright for a millionaire to pollute as much as they want as long as they pay offset costs? Is it okay for them to murder people in the streets as long as they pay back the cost to society? How many dollars is a life worth? Where do we draw the line, and who bears the brunt? Our carbon emissions are triggering a mass extinction, and we need to be at negatives. Conspiratiorist fucked around with this message at 00:34 on Dec 27, 2018 |
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2018 00:32
|
|
|
It's like indulgences sold by the Catholic Church to "pay for your sins". Doesn't change a drat thing, except maybe making you feel a little less guilty.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2018 00:45
|
|
|
I am a white, presenting as cis-gender, grandpa age male US citizen who has lived most of his adult life outside of the US. I am the product of many generations of full on white male privilege. As a result I am racist. How could I not be? Every image, class, story, movie, process all communicated and taught racism, and white male superiority, even when "well intended" or progressive. I can accept this and actively work with it or remain racist as gently caress. I hope you understand how this is related to climate change and if you do not I would be happy to talk about it. Well... not happy, but we can talk about it. I have been attempting to work on climate change one way or another since 1989. Iterative failure and misinformed efforts at best I would say. In 1997 Lord John Browne, then CEO of bp started giving speeches about climate change. He was clear that we were causing it and that if we waited for certainty and consensus we would be far too late. The risks were too clear and too serious to ignore, so he said. He then set about all the "beyond petroleum" stuff. One piece of that was rebranding, but he also followed with 8 billion of initial investment in a renewables portfolio, follow on growth strategy and a hydrocarbon divestment plan. He wanted to shift from the hydrocarbon molecule as the source of the companies value to electrons. The most senior woman in the oil industry was to lead this effort. When the strategy and structure was put together it was assumed that the bp mothership would betray them at some point and they built it accordingly. At the same time they were implementing this Shell divested all of its renewable assets, other than some profitable services provided by its global tech company. Exxon/Mobil was of course fully denying climate change altogether, funding trash science/propaganda and doubling down on being an oil company. They were not alone. Many companies, including Exxon, were publicly denying climate change while privately creating strategies to both mitigate climate related risks they considered high probability and profit from the effects of climate change. All the major strategy houses, equity firms, etc. are fully involved in this. Browne's position and strategy were a break with the industry and with his own board. And he was succeeding in bringing it about. He was then outed in a tabloid "scandal". This conveniently fit the board's wishes since it made it impossible for him to credibly negotiate with either the Russians or Saudis, their two biggest hydrocarbon partners and among the most homophobic regimes on the planet. He resigned and about the most traditional "oil man" possible from the upstream (extraction) part of the business was tapped to replace him and presided over the DeepWater Horizon disaster and following cover up of the actual effects. The degree of lying and knowing deceit across all fossil related industry is profound. Almost all industry is fossil fuel related. The only morality, and it does function as a morality, is of course the maximization and consolidation of profit. Anything else is secondary at best and usually viewed as an adversary. This includes all issues of safety, environment and equity. Most of the individual human beings involved are by no means individually evil, though there are real exceptions to that from my point of view. This is not a defense of bp by any means. Rather it reveals what happens even if you seriously attempt responsible changes or transformations within fossil fuel related industry (which is basically all industry) in a way that might negatively effect profits and share price in the short term. It’s experienced as a moral violation within a hosed up morality and dealt with in that way. I have been working on climate change in one way or another since 1989. I co-designed and facilitated the implementation of the process through which bp created their renewables portfolio and the intent to shift to electrons. They were quite serious about it and succeeding to a great extent. After these events took place I completely abandoned the utterly failed ideology of "making a difference" through creating benevolent, conscious change and transformation within and with corporate partners. I shifted for several years to facilitating Sino-US dialogue at city and provincial levels. Real work was already being down at the city level in several US mayors offices. They had been learning from one another. There was a year where we had dialogues between the person from the US responsible for climate action in Mayor's offices with provincial planning commissions from 17 of the large Chinese cities. State partners are ore or less hosed as well since they are beholden to fossil fuel powers. I think bp was in the top 10 global economies, including all nation states at the time it made its attempt. When many of the folks involved in the capacity building from the US side wanted the replicate the (spectacularly failed) Huangbaiyu village model. I started asking about equity and authorization. Where in your own lives are you making the sorts of changes you plan to make "on to" these people such that you would in any way be authorized to carry out such a design? Where was the Chinese design team telling you about the changes they were going to make so your life was sustainable? This coalition was made up of luminaries from the most prestigious US schools and some similar environmentalists. So I declared that a failure as well. Only one institution didn’t tell me they were too busy doing the design to think about these questions, while also acknowledging the legitimacy of the questions. Instead they took the inquiry seriously and I shifted all my activity to education based on the premise that the current system is doing nothing to prepare current generations for the world they are going to inherit. We got several million dollars from the NSF designing and implementing a pilot undergraduate program. It was nationally acknowledged as very successful in a variety of measured ways. The administration at the university underwent a change where the new president and provost were very explicitly academic capitalists, looking at the entire educational process as if it were a corporation, students as both commodities and market place and corporate interest as the arbiter of public good. They hated us, were morally offended by what we were doing and systematically started to attack and attempt to discredit faculty involved. They failed, but it created such a hostile workplace that many of them left. Law suits are still taking place relative to the retaliatory and discriminatory aspects of the administrations actions. I am not optimistic they will succeed or inspire any policy or process changes. Tenured faculty are a fixed cost and within the neoliberal values of academic capitalism and of course you want to eliminate or minimize such fixed costs, replacing tenured faculty with young lecturers who are a temporary, fungible workforce and cost base. Essentially, I do not work directly on climate change any more, though I am still working on climate change. I work to reveal and undermine the systems of oppression that keep in place the dynamics producing both the effect and the radical inequities inextricably twined with climate change. I radically changed my life over the past 15 or so years such that I have some remote chance at solidarity. Iterative failure at best I would say. I worked to give away power and privilege, empowering those traditionally marginalized and oppressed in every way I could and have done my best to tune my life to my convictions regarding the emerging future and current planetary effects. I thoroughly abandoned the bullshit ideologies of "making a difference" where the narcissism of that process and ideology when held by a benefactor of the systems of oppression only ever serves to reify one’s own status as a beneficiary. Such ideologies only serve to strengthen the objectification, racism, misogyny, etc. that are inextricably tied to the human production of climate change, mass extinction and the destruction of life systems on the planet. I am still persuaded that the problem must be addressed generationally and that the most important thing is to empower voices that have been systematically and historically suppressed by a system of segregation and white, patriarchal supremacy. I am also deeply committed to non-violence, or more directly to peaceful processes, ways of being as legitimate ways of working with conscious change at individual, collective and societal levels. I don’t usually talk about all this since it risks placing the attention in the wrong place. My voice and point of view do not need to be empowered. Sogol fucked around with this message at 05:42 on Dec 27, 2018 |
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2018 02:34
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:You're assuming it's okay to dump toxic waste on rivers so long as you pay your fines. Ehh, what? No, no I’m not. Everything I said was specifically about co2 and sequestering it, not dumping toxic waste in rivers. Please read better.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2018 05:26
|
|
|
funkatron3000 posted:Ehh, what? No, no I’m not. Everything I said was specifically about co2 and sequestering it, not dumping toxic waste in rivers. Please read better. Tomato tomato. "Pollution is okay so long as you pay someone to clean up after you" is your core belief here.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2018 10:10
|
|
|
False, but you keep building up those straw men. For anyone following along getting confused by the russia/oil shills trying to muddy any positive discussion with what abouts: cleaning up pollution that is emitted is better than not cleaning it up at all and not emitting it at all is definitely even better yet.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2018 14:39
|
|
|
thanks for trying sogol
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2018 14:55
|
|
|
funkatron3000 posted:False, but you keep building up those straw men. Following that logic it should be easy to understand that the next best thing to not emitting isn't to clean up after yourself (particularly since the infrastructure for such does not exist), but to prevent others from emitting. Sequestration is the pie in the sky required for negative emissions; we need it to have any long-term chance, but pursuing it detracts from what we can effectively actually start doing in the now.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2018 17:46
|
|
|
funkatron3000 posted:False, but you keep building up those straw men. What the gently caress are you on about with "russia/oil shills"? Carbon offset credits are nothing but a way for you to feel better about yourself. If you want to reduce CO2 then advocate for policy change and change your lifestyle.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2018 18:12
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:Tomato tomato. funkatron3000 posted:False, but you keep building up those straw men. I regret to inform you that Conspiratiorist is correct.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2018 18:15
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:thanks for trying sogol Hey, just wanted to poke in and ask about your first post in this thread about the mathematical impossibility of oil and gas interests not tanking the world economy after they are forced to take the reserves off the accounting ledger.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2018 18:40
|
|
|
The Carbon Bubble popping will be some poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2018 18:41
|
|
|
I am starting to come around to the idea that almost every lovely political thing that is happening right now is literally due to the fossil fuel industry doing everything it can to remain in existence and generate profits. They are a rat backed into a corner. Except this rat is holding entire governments (if not the global economic system) captive and has trillions of dollars to spend to convince you not to kill it. But, at some point, that bubble will have to pop.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2018 19:26
|
|
|
It's gonna be a wild ride when it does.... I'm oldish now so have lived my life, sucks for the 'young uns'.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2018 19:51
|
|
|
Notorious R.I.M. posted:What the gently caress are you on about with "russia/oil shills"? I was mostly joking, but when someone asks a simple question about what we can do in addition personal lifestyle changes to reduce our footprint to sequester CO2 because offsets look like a scam, like buy 20 acres of forest or growing algae or whatever sucks up CO2, and the response is you can't and also asking the question means you're pro every other environmental problem, it makes you think that poster isn't replying in good faith. funkatron3000 fucked around with this message at 21:13 on Dec 27, 2018 |
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2018 21:11
|
|
|
funkatron3000 posted:I was mostly joking, but when someone asks a simple question about what we can do in addition personal lifestyle changes to reduce our footprint to sequester CO2 because offsets look like a scam, like buy 20 acres of forest or growing algae or whatever sucks up CO2, and the response is you can't and also asking the question means you're pro every other environmental problem, it makes you think that poster isn't replying in good faith. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/05/170518104038.htm quote:Growing plants and then storing the carbon dioxide they have taken up from the atmosphere is no viable option to counteract unmitigated emissions from fossil fuel burning, a new study shows. The plantations would need to be so large, they would eliminate most natural ecosystems or reduce food production if implemented as a late-regret option in the case of substantial failure to reduce emissions. No we're just tired of fools like you thinking that you can offset your waste when no such technology exists at the scale we need. Oh, and we have twelve years to halve emissions. Thinking that you can just cancel out your waste on a gigantic planetary system is the same kind of hubris that got us into this mess. Everything is a cycle. If you make big loving algae blooms they have to go somewhere. All that respiration leads to anoxia in the deep ocean. More unexpected changes. The cycle out of balance continues. The best way to mitigate is to reduce variance. Mitigating one extreme carbon cycle imbalance with another extreme does not accomplish that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2018 22:38
|
|
|
Jesus Christ, ever single post I’ve said in addition to cutting co2 and you reply by posting an article saying that you can’t replace cutting co2 with sequestering. Also, you’re literally insulting and calling someone a fool for asking questions about doing more than cutting their own emissions. Welcome back to the toxic climate change thread. I’ll go back to my life of being Hexxus the pollution monster.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2018 23:38
|
|
|
funkatron3000 posted:I was mostly joking, but when someone asks a simple question about what we can do in addition personal lifestyle changes to reduce our footprint to sequester CO2 because offsets look like a scam, like buy 20 acres of forest or growing algae or whatever sucks up CO2, and the response is you can't and also asking the question means you're pro every other environmental problem, it makes you think that poster isn't replying in good faith. What set me off wasn't your honest, if misguided, approach at looking to positively contribute. My issue was this: funkatron3000 posted:Isn't buying our way out of the problem, voluntarily or otherwise, exactly what needs to happen? At least extrapolating from CO2 being an externality that's not currently priced in. Like, no, using fossil fuels and just figuratively dumping the CO2 into your neighbors yard isn't ok, you need to either pay to capture the CO2 yourself, pay someone to do it in bulk more efficiently, pay to switch to a non-fossil alternative, or stop doing whatever needs fossil fuels altogether. And do that across the entire global economy. Climate Change solutions are fundamentally incompatible with Free-Market Capitalism, and that's as honest an answer as you can get on the matter. You just can't "price the externality" - it just doesn't work because you cannot measure it, nor would it be ethical to put a monetary value on the death and suffering of hundreds of millions of human beings. To truly begin to see the issue, you need to disengage yourself from this kind of thinking. This is something that people need to understand, especially people like you coming in to tackle this with fresh and hopeful eyes. So I said before, the best thing you can do is reduce your personal carbon footprint as much as you can, and the next best thing after that is social and political advocacy to reduce the carbon footprint of others. funkatron3000 posted:Jesus Christ, ever single post I’ve said in addition to cutting co2 and you reply by posting an article saying that you can’t replace cutting co2 with sequestering. You asked what you can do in addition to cutting CO2, and you've just been told that there's nothing you can do beyond cutting CO2. Does that not answer your question? Plus you opened yourself to being called names when you started calling people oil shills. Conspiratiorist fucked around with this message at 23:47 on Dec 27, 2018 |
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2018 23:42
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:You just can't "price the externality" - it just doesn't work because you cannot measure it, nor would it be ethical to put a monetary value on the death and suffering of hundreds of millions of human beings. sure you can, it's just hard and, you know, of sharply limited use except at the GLOBAL policy level I do a bunch of road safety poo poo. We price the value of a human life ALL THE TIME. We do not, for example, set the nominal and effective speed limits at 15mph everywhere all the time. ...and the amount we use for the value of a human life on a lot of topics is sufficiently fuckhuge that it may if anything be higher than the per capita expenditures we're talking about to fight climate change 
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2018 00:16
|
|
|
So as a resolution going forward my wife and I have decided to try to severely cut down on our carbon emissions, particularly because we wanted to try for a child in the next year or two, and we're both aware of the carbon cost of a child. There's some things that are virtually impossible for us to cut, like fully cutting out vehicles, as my wife is a substitute teacher and might need to travel in ways that cannot work with the local public transit system or cycling. And while purchasing hybrid/fully electric vehicles is in the plans, it's currently cost-prohibitive. I was already planning on weaning myself into cycling to work come the spring, and going veg-only twice a week. What else does the thread recommend we do in order to cut down on our emissions?
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2018 00:27
|
|
|
berenzen posted:What else does the thread recommend we do in order to cut down on our emissions? Adopt.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2018 00:43
|
|
|
This isn't carbon emission reduction, but Eat Less Water goes into the importance of choosing food with smaller ecological footprints.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2018 01:10
|
|
|
berenzen posted:So as a resolution going forward my wife and I have decided to try to severely cut down on our carbon emissions, particularly because we wanted to try for a child in the next year or two, and we're both aware of the carbon cost of a child. There is straight up nothing you can do and no comfort you can sacrifice to any extent which will offset the carbon footprint of bringing another child into the world. Should we get into the ethical & moral issues with bearing a child while being aware enough of climate change and it's potential outcomes to even post that question in this thread? I don't think I've ever called someone selfish outright before, but goddamn. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2018 01:34
|
|
|
Your potential child will have a much, much, smaller chance to have a better life than you-- by like a lot. More so every year. This is now guaranteed. Remember that when trying to bring a new child into the world.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2018 01:43
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:sure you can, it's just hard I feel you may have misapprehended or perhaps strategically avoided the main point suggested, namely: Conspiratiorist posted:
Perhaps it is worth asking whether you (we) understand why someone would suggest that free market capitalism is incompatible with climate solutions? What is your understanding of that proposition? I am really not asking to debate you about whether you feel it is true or not. Simply not useful in any way. Rather, I am curious what you feel might be the reasons for holding such a view? What do think the statement means? What is it about capitalism that someone might believe to be incompatible with climate solutions? I do not mean to derail your points about safety within the paradigm of capitalism and it is indeed a related matter, so it seems to me. Without understanding something about our various views on the relationship between a capitalist system and climate change these other conversations might not be so useful.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2018 02:09
|
|
|
you may produce another life only if you intend to raise it in perfect harmony with nature
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2018 02:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 19:10 |
|
|
berenzen posted:So as a resolution going forward my wife and I have decided to try to severely cut down on our carbon emissions, particularly because we wanted to try for a child in the next year or two, and we're both aware of the carbon cost of a child.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2018 02:18
|
|
