6 ms·

Shell's 1991 warning: climate changing ‘faster than at any time since ice age’

110 points by jonathansizz 10y ago

voidz 10y ago
"Oh no, how will we ever wrap a narrative around this one?!" -- 97% of all scientists according to "CNN" - /s
- thrillgore 10y ago
  Fake news is in the eye of the beholder.
- knowaveragejoe 10y ago
  You know this could have been true then and now. That's how the curve would work.
leonroy 10y ago
There's a concept called 'first mover disadvantage'. None of these companies are idiots, I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that they all knew of climate change decades prior to 1991. However the way our system prices externalities (very ineffectively) and focuses on rewarding quarterly earnings rather than a longer term approach creates a total and utter disincentive for any forward thinking CEO to make a big step away from the company's core markets. We can hold Shell's feet to the fire on this sure, but that achieves nothing apart from disincentivizing self awareness within these large companies. What we need is a way to push the entire industry towards more environmentally sustainable practices not penalize them for talking about it.
- knowaveragejoe 10y ago
  Take away subsidies for them and use that money to incentivize development of renewables and nuclear. I'm sure it's already happening in places. Normally I am against intervention in the markets, but in this case I don't see how a major shift is going to take place without it when we've got decades more of cheap combustibles we can coast on.
  - mirimir 10y ago
    Yes. And not just eliminate subsidies. The fossil fuel industries need to be taxed heavily, with proceeds going to renewables. But not nuclear, unless it's passively safe, and doesn't create long-lived waste.
- jackmott 10y ago
  The reason this issue is so hotly contested is because there is no way (probably) for the fossil fuel industry to solve this problem, other than to cease existing, or completely convert themselves to another business. Yes I am aware of geo-engineering ideas and sequestering ideas, but nobody has a practical plan that can really work. If it was as simple as using a new refrigerant or putting catalytic converters on cars, the industry would have done that, as they did with carbon monoxide and ozone layer issues. This problem's solution is much much much more painful. I think our only hope is for solar/wind/nuclear to get so good nobody wants fossil fuels any more. That isn't easy either, but it could happen, and we should be trying really really hard.
  - leephillips 10y ago
    "I think our only hope is for solar/wind/nuclear to get so good nobody wants fossil fuels any more." We are at this stage now or approaching it: https://robertscribbler.com/2016/12/19/solar-now-produces-a-better-energy-return-on-investment-than-oil/ https://robertscribbler.com/2016/12/19/solar-now-produces-a-...
  - mikeash 10y ago
    The oil companies ought to have been pushing for solar/wind/nuclear to get that good more quickly. If they knew there was a problem and knew that the solution required making their business obsolete, then the proper choice is to make themselves obsolete rather than waiting for others to do it for them. But, nope, let's screw over future generations because that's too hard.
    - menacingly 10y ago
      This is exactly the kind of haughty idealism that leads to nothing ever getting done on contentious issues
      - mikeash 10y ago
        How is "figure out a way to transform your business so you don't wreck the planet" haughty idealism, and how does suggesting that as the correct approach result in nothing ever getting done?
- mirimir 10y ago
  I'm struck by the analogy to the tobacco industry. One justification for public intervention was evidence that they knew about health impacts, but then spread misinformation to protect their business.
- Arizhel 10y ago
  >What we need is a way to push the entire industry towards more environmentally sustainable practices Who's going to do that? In case you haven't noticed, we've now elected an Administration and Congress who explicitly don't believe climate change is real, and who are gutting the EPA as I write this. There is zero support in government for moving towards more environmentally sustainable practices, and the Citizenry backs this change of course wholeheartedly.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > There is zero support in government for moving towards more environmentally sustainable practices Zero support in the executive administration and the legislative majority, sure. > and the Citizenry backs this change of course wholeheartedly Election results and polling data do not support the idea of the citizenry supporting the current administration and/or legislative majority "wholeheartedly".
- brandmeyer 10y ago
  IMO, the problem is much worse than that. There are trillions of dollars in assets "on the books" that are currently priced into existing markets and corporate valuations. Everyone who is invested in these firms stands to lose a ton of money if humanity can manage to keep it in the ground. http://www.carbontracker.org/resources/#unburnable-carbon http://www.carbontracker.org/resources/#unburnable-carbon
- SamPhillips 10y ago
  I mean, you say they are not idiots, but also that they are knowingly destroying the ecosystem on which supports all life on their planet. Which is kinda like knowing the brakes on your car are not working but being smart enough to cheat an inspection. Is that actually smart?
arzt 10y ago
If these guys were knowingly creating massive externalities, and they are blamed and penalized for it, how do you put a price on the damage without putting a stop to modern civilization? State AGs are now taking these companies to task much in the same way big tobacco was tried. Not everyone smokes, but everyone participates in petroleum fueled global economy.

110 points by jonathansizz 10y ago

voidz 10y ago

"Oh no, how will we ever wrap a narrative around this one?!" -- 97% of all scientists according to "CNN" - /s

thrillgore 10y ago
Fake news is in the eye of the beholder.
knowaveragejoe 10y ago
You know this could have been true then and now. That's how the curve would work.

leonroy 10y ago

There's a concept called 'first mover disadvantage'. None of these companies are idiots, I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that they all knew of climate change decades prior to 1991. However the way our system prices externalities (very ineffectively) and focuses on rewarding quarterly earnings rather than a longer term approach creates a total and utter disincentive for any forward thinking CEO to make a big step away from the company's core markets. We can hold Shell's feet to the fire on this sure, but that achieves nothing apart from disincentivizing self awareness within these large companies. What we need is a way to push the entire industry towards more environmentally sustainable practices not penalize them for talking about it.

knowaveragejoe 10y ago
Take away subsidies for them and use that money to incentivize development of renewables and nuclear. I'm sure it's already happening in places. Normally I am against intervention in the markets, but in this case I don't see how a major shift is going to take place without it when we've got decades more of cheap combustibles we can coast on.
- mirimir 10y ago
  Yes. And not just eliminate subsidies. The fossil fuel industries need to be taxed heavily, with proceeds going to renewables. But not nuclear, unless it's passively safe, and doesn't create long-lived waste.
jackmott 10y ago
The reason this issue is so hotly contested is because there is no way (probably) for the fossil fuel industry to solve this problem, other than to cease existing, or completely convert themselves to another business. Yes I am aware of geo-engineering ideas and sequestering ideas, but nobody has a practical plan that can really work. If it was as simple as using a new refrigerant or putting catalytic converters on cars, the industry would have done that, as they did with carbon monoxide and ozone layer issues. This problem's solution is much much much more painful. I think our only hope is for solar/wind/nuclear to get so good nobody wants fossil fuels any more. That isn't easy either, but it could happen, and we should be trying really really hard.
- leephillips 10y ago
  "I think our only hope is for solar/wind/nuclear to get so good nobody wants fossil fuels any more." We are at this stage now or approaching it: https://robertscribbler.com/2016/12/19/solar-now-produces-a-better-energy-return-on-investment-than-oil/ https://robertscribbler.com/2016/12/19/solar-now-produces-a-...
- mikeash 10y ago
  The oil companies ought to have been pushing for solar/wind/nuclear to get that good more quickly. If they knew there was a problem and knew that the solution required making their business obsolete, then the proper choice is to make themselves obsolete rather than waiting for others to do it for them. But, nope, let's screw over future generations because that's too hard.
  - menacingly 10y ago
    This is exactly the kind of haughty idealism that leads to nothing ever getting done on contentious issues
    - mikeash 10y ago
      How is "figure out a way to transform your business so you don't wreck the planet" haughty idealism, and how does suggesting that as the correct approach result in nothing ever getting done?
mirimir 10y ago
I'm struck by the analogy to the tobacco industry. One justification for public intervention was evidence that they knew about health impacts, but then spread misinformation to protect their business.
Arizhel 10y ago
>What we need is a way to push the entire industry towards more environmentally sustainable practices Who's going to do that? In case you haven't noticed, we've now elected an Administration and Congress who explicitly don't believe climate change is real, and who are gutting the EPA as I write this. There is zero support in government for moving towards more environmentally sustainable practices, and the Citizenry backs this change of course wholeheartedly.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > There is zero support in government for moving towards more environmentally sustainable practices Zero support in the executive administration and the legislative majority, sure. > and the Citizenry backs this change of course wholeheartedly Election results and polling data do not support the idea of the citizenry supporting the current administration and/or legislative majority "wholeheartedly".
brandmeyer 10y ago
IMO, the problem is much worse than that. There are trillions of dollars in assets "on the books" that are currently priced into existing markets and corporate valuations. Everyone who is invested in these firms stands to lose a ton of money if humanity can manage to keep it in the ground. http://www.carbontracker.org/resources/#unburnable-carbon http://www.carbontracker.org/resources/#unburnable-carbon
SamPhillips 10y ago
I mean, you say they are not idiots, but also that they are knowingly destroying the ecosystem on which supports all life on their planet. Which is kinda like knowing the brakes on your car are not working but being smart enough to cheat an inspection. Is that actually smart?

arzt 10y ago

If these guys were knowingly creating massive externalities, and they are blamed and penalized for it, how do you put a price on the damage without putting a stop to modern civilization? State AGs are now taking these companies to task much in the same way big tobacco was tried. Not everyone smokes, but everyone participates in petroleum fueled global economy.